Skip to main content

Under the new NFHS rule for the catcher blocking the plate, am I right that technically the catcher cannot set up in front of the plate without the ball?

Scenario: runner on 3rd, ground ball to third baseman. Catcher sets up in front of plate, ball arrives before runner, tag made, runner called out.

Third base coach argued that there must be a clear path to the plate until the catcher has the ball. Because in this case the catcher set up in front of the plate anticipating the throw, that it constituted obstruction, and the runner should be safe.

As I understand the new rule, I think the coach is correct.

What do you guys say?

A related question: if the catcher sets up in the basepath with is feet straddling the plate, would the fact that the plate is accessible between the catcher's legs constitute "a clear path to the plate?"
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This is a "touchy feely" type call by the plate umpire. The catcher can not block the plate without the ball. IMHO the catcher better have the ball if he's blocking the entire plate. Other wise that's interference. If (and I find this to be the case more often than not) this is a bang-bang play then the ball better be with/at the catcher at the time of the "collision". Lastly, if the catcher is straddling the line but the runner has a clear path to slide under the catcher then I'm not going to call Interference as long as the ball is clearly on it's way to the catcher (meaning, the catch is imminent).

Bottom line: your coach is correct.
The rule does not prohibit a fielder from being in the baseline without the ball at all times, it says the the fielder must provide access to the base when he does not have the ball.

Is a runner 60-90 feet from home being obstructed or denied access when F2 is in the base line? No.

There must be actual obstruction for an umpire to call obstruction. Merely seeing that there is a potential for obstruction is not enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kremer:



A related question: if the catcher sets up in the basepath with is feet straddling the plate, would the fact that the plate is accessible between the catcher's legs constitute "a clear path to the plate?"


The interpretation from Indianapolis is that the runner must be provided access to a portion of the side of the base (plate)facing the runner.

If the catcher is truly straddling the plate, he is providing access.
okay i was playing today and i was blocking the plate but i was strauling it i was a good 5ft out in front and my legs were spread apart and i wasnt over the lne till the ball was getting thrown. and i tagged the guy because i forced him to go around me and the umpire call him safe because i was "blocking the plate"
quote:
Originally posted by sphs:
okay i was playing today and i was blocking the plate but i was strauling it i was a good 5ft out in front and my legs were spread apart and i wasnt over the lne till the ball was getting thrown. and i tagged the guy because i forced him to go around me and the umpire call him safe because i was "blocking the plate"


Do you mean you were 5' up the line, and without the ball? If so, good call. Even though your legs were spread, you still denied access since you can't realistically expect a runner to go under a catcher that far from the plate.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×