quote:
Originally posted by P-Dog:quote:
Then you'd be teaching something illegal and dangerous. If a player were injured because of this, you'd be in court faced with a large liabilty suit. And possibly the criminal charge of child endangerment.
Whoa, BZ, back on the meds, quick! Contact between players happens in 'most every game. Tag play at the plate, rundowns, you name it. Generally no one gets hurt. I try to teach players to assert their right to the place on the field they have the right to occupy, and not be intimidated into failing to make the play by an opposing player who impinges on that right. Examples: batted ball toward shortstop, with a player running from second. Young SS will frequently back off and fail to charge the ball, to avoid contact with the baserunner. That's bad baseball. Make the runner avoid contact - it's his responsibility. Same principle when a defensive player obstructs a baserunner's path. The runner should not allow himself to be diverted (and likely put out) because a fielder fails to allow him his path when he has a right to it. That's not to say (and doesn't imply to the calm among us) that the baserunner should try to hurt the fielder. That's unnecesary and counter-productive. Ideally, the runner should have arms out, pushing the fielder out of the way (and doing it as obviously as possible) while never conceding the path to the base. It's legal, and no more dangerous than any other part of the game.
And that's why I take the OP's description with a grain of salt. I'm familiar with the play he describes. If it's done right, there won't be any contact between the runner and the SS. But there's a temptation for the SS to cut it close, since many baserunners will hesitate to run into him, which increases the success ratio of the play.
If the SS does "linger" in the basepath, and the baserunners execute their job properly, there will be contact, and it will be initiated with the runner's arms pushing the shortstop. Which sounds a lot like what happened in this game.
Whenever somebody posts a situation and complains about an ump's call, I try to look for a way in which the ump could have been right. Generally the poster isn't going to highlight the details which might lead to that analysis, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise.
The original situation did not describe legitimate contact, such as on a legal slide. F6, NOT making a play on a batted ball, INTENTIONALLY hindered the runner, who tackled him. Any umpire who doesn't first call "obstruction" on F6, and then "malicious contact and unsportsmanlike conduct" on the runner for TACKLING F6, should find another avocation, because he either doesn't know the rules, and/or is too chicken to call these infractions.
Any "coach" who teaches his runners to shove an infielder in his path is guilty of teaching illegal tactics, and should join those "chicken" blues somewhere away from working with youth.
Read the rule books and case books, and learn what "obstruction", "interference" and "malicious contact" are. You will probably be surprised, and you might even learn something.
I don't know where in California you live, but it's certainly not in area I worked, where umpires ae taught not to allow these illegalactions to go unpunished.