Privacy Manager

One of the key moments in Wednesday’s Game 1 of the 2025 WCWS final came in the fifth inning. That’s when a controversial obstruction call looked like it would steal the show as it set up Texas Tech’s first run against Texas.

During the ESPN broadcast, Jessica Mendoza said the NCAA needs to change the rule. She reiterated that afterward, calling for the NCAA to adjust the verbiage after the play.

Mendoza argued the runner, Logan Halleman, was out by a wide enough margin that obstruction didn’t make a difference. But by letter of the law, Leighann Goode obstructed her path to the base even though she was well out. That, Mendoza said, needs to change as obstruction takes center stage in Oklahoma City.

“It’s not, and they need to change the rule because the problem with the rule is if the runner is starting their slide – my thing is, if the runner is hosed, if she’s going to be out, then there is no obstruction,” Mendoza said on SportsCenter with Scott Van Pelt. “Is she obstructing if the runner is not even there yet? So the way that the rule reads is yes, the shortstop Leighann Goode was in the base path. Was she blocking the leading edge? But the point is it’s got to be when the runner is actually going into it. That’s the point. Is she obstructing the runner? But the runner was going to be out no matter what, and that’s why the rule has to change because that is not obstruction.

“That is not what the rule is for, and it’s hard here at the World Series. I am with you. We talked about it in the break during the game. I am so glad that that is not the leading topic of this amazing game.”

What is the obstruction rule in NCAA softball?

The NCAA changed the obstruction rule for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. The goal is to allow a runner a path to the base while running on a live ball. A play is deemed to be obstruction if a defensive player blocks any part of the leading edge of a base – including home plate – or “otherwise blocks the runner from advancing or returning to a base,” according to Rule 9.5.1.

“Obstruction occurs when a defensive player, neither in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch or impedes the progress of any runner who is legally running bases on a live ball,” the rule states. “It can be intentional or unintentional. It is obstruction if a defensive player is blocking the whole base/plate or base path without the ball and/or the runner does not have a path to the base/plate.”

Once the fielder has possession of the ball, they can be between the runner and the base. Additionally, umpires can call obstruction even if no physical contact occurs, which was the case Wednesday night before Goode placed the tag. It can also occur on a force play.

The rationale, according to the rule, is to “more clearly define the basic tenets of the obstruction rule to help coaches teach their defensive players how to properly defend at the base/plate and to assist umpires in making the correct ruling in these situations.”

Texas wins a thriller in Game 1 of WCWS final

The obstruction call was just one of the wild moments in Wednesday’s Game 1 of the championship series. Texas put together a rally in the sixth inning thanks in large part to Reese Atwood’s heroics.

Texas Tech pitcher NiJaree Canady attempted to intentionally walk Atwood, but a pitch drifted toward the strike zone. The Longhorns catcher capitalized, sending it to left field to drive in two runs and give UT a two-run lead.

But things got wild again in the bottom of the seventh. Texas Tech got a strikeout from Teagan Kavan and Atwood hit the home plate umpire’s mask on the throw to second on the stolen base attempt. Mike White then challenged and argued there was batter interference, as well, meaning the baserunner would be out. The umpires upheld the call on the field, though, and the game ended one batter later.

Patrick Mahomes continues to show his love toward Texas Tech softball, as the Red Raiders compete in their first-ever Women’s College World Series championship series.

When five-star prospect Nate Ament signed a multi-year NIL deal with Reebok in October 2024, he didn’t just make history, he reshaped the future conversation around player-brand partnerships in college athletics.

Ament became the first male high school basketball player to ink a deal with Reebok, aligning himself with the company’s strategic re-entry into the performance basketball market. At the center of the partnership is Reebok’s new Engine A shoe, a model Ament not only wears but now headlines with his own Player Exclusive (PE) colorways.

But Ament’s arrival in Knoxville raises new questions for Tennessee, especially as the school approaches the end of its Nike apparel deal, set to expire on June 30, 2026. Originally signed in 2014, the Nike partnership is currently worth $1.2 million in base compensation and includes a product allotment of $4.5 million annually.

Now, the Volunteers are reportedly in talks with both Nike and Adidas, sparking debate over whether a brand switch is imminent and how that might affect athletes with independent NIL deals like Ament.

So far, Ament’s Reebok deal appears independent of Tennessee’s apparel choices. Unlike some athletes restricted by team-wide sponsorships, such as Cooper Flagg, who couldn’t wear New Balance at Duke, others like Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper at Rutgers have been allowed to wear Nike even though the school partners with Adidas.

For Reebok, Ament represents the centerpiece of its basketball relaunch—a multi-million dollar endorsement that brings flash, credibility, and long-term potential. For Tennessee, his presence could further complicate or possibly influence the school’s apparel negotiations, especially if Reebok seeks deeper collegiate partnerships down the line.

With Ament poised to debut in orange and the apparel clock ticking, Tennessee finds itself at the crossroads of brand loyalty, athlete autonomy, and NIL-era strategy.