No blocking the plate in HS...right?

Interested in this situation.  Had an instance where our runner had to hop over the catcher who was blocking out in front of the plate - without the ball.  The runner was safe, but there was some excitement back at 2nd base when the catcher - who finally got the ball - threw down trying to get the batter heading to 2nd.  The average parent in the stands wanted blocking called, dead ball with batter being given 2B.

Maybe no harm no foul and ball remains live (i.e. no call necessary), but was wondering if the catcher had gotten the ball and perhaps tagged the runner in mid hop, would he have been called for blocking (we're talking maybe 2-3 feet in front of the plate).

I suspect you will find that it is nothing until something happens.  I am not sure of HS rules here but the runner probably needs to make an attempt to reach the plate by sliding or going around the catcher.  At that point the umpire has something to call - if the runner checks up as described then the umpire calls him out because there was nothing to call.

Think of it like this - runner on 2nd ball hit in 3B hole - runner coming down from 2nd checks up to avoid contact with 3B who was playing even with the bag and dives into the hole.  Runner then tries to score and is thrown out by 2 steps at the plate.  Nothing for umpire to call.  If on the other hand the ball is past the 3B and he makes contact with the runner - then you get the obstruction call.

One thing to be careful of is that it does not guarantee being safe at home on this play.  If the runner in the umpire judgment would have been out at home without the obstruction he will still be out.  This happened some years ago in the playoffs when a runner didn't go hard all the way and got thrown out by 25 feet.

LUV BASEBALL. Nope, the catcher pretty covered 90% of the base path BEFORE the ball arrived on the one-hop. He would have definitely been safe had he not had to check-up to avoid the collision. The runner would have had to make a serious hook slide with mega arm reach to have a chance at the plate given the base path blockage. Which, I think, goes above and beyond for typical HS play. And if he trucked the catcher he'd rightly be out.

By your logic (which I get and makes sense), the catcher should always block the base path because odds are, the runner will make a bad hook slide and NOT try to take him out. And if he does take him out he still gets the out. Seems like that goes against the spirit of HS baseball and no more collisions at home. But that's just my opinion. Which still gets back to: Can the catcher block the plate BEFORE the ball arrives?  .

Virginia uses FED rules, which are the most stringent on the defense when it comes to obstruction. A fielder without the ball needs to allow the runner access to the base to which he is trying to achieve. There is no exemption for being in the act of receiving a throw. Contact is not required; if a runner changes his path or slows down because of the hindrance, it is also OBS. Also, all OBS in FED is delayed dead; there is no provision for an immediate dead ball if the runner is being played upon at the time of the infraction. There is a mandatory minimum one-base award for all OBS in FED.

Thus, the way you describe it, this would be OBS and the runner should have been awarded home.

Thanks for the replies. I'm just glad it was not of major significance and there was not a major collision.

Batty67 posted:

LUV BASEBALL. Nope, the catcher pretty covered 90% of the base path BEFORE the ball arrived on the one-hop. He would have definitely been safe had he not had to check-up to avoid the collision. The runner would have had to make a serious hook slide with mega arm reach to have a chance at the plate given the base path blockage. Which, I think, goes above and beyond for typical HS play. And if he trucked the catcher he'd rightly be out.

By your logic (which I get and makes sense), the catcher should always block the base path because odds are, the runner will make a bad hook slide and NOT try to take him out. And if he does take him out he still gets the out. Seems like that goes against the spirit of HS baseball and no more collisions at home. But that's just my opinion. Which still gets back to: Can the catcher block the plate BEFORE the ball arrives?  .

I made that same argument to an umpire - and lost.  I even used the exact same example you cite.  The response - until there is something to call there is nothing.

VA rule is very tough on umpires - because they have to "assume" things rather then make judgment on what actually happened.  Saw it called once and it was fugly.  Defensive coach starts with "How do you know what would have happened if...."  I thought it was an excellent question. 

It was on a double play ball and umpire got winning run across and blew up a turned double play.  Runner on 1st was blocked by a 2B playing in while runners going on full count bases loaded - ball hit up middle SS grabbed - stepped on 2nd - threw on to first for banger DP.  2B had his back to runner watching SS make the play so he started in the baseline and moved toward 2nd base with contact and his back to the runner trailing him.  Then moved to his right to create a throwing lane causing the runner from 1st to check up about 10 feet from the bag.  It would have been close at 2nd - really close - so it wasn't a crazy call but sure was controversial without any contact.

Fair enough, but even absent the VA/FED rules which are very clear, I still think blocking the plate--especially BEFORE the ball arrives--in HS baseball should generally be discouraged in an era when even MLB had seriously curbed home plate collisions. At the end of the day, given the VA/FED rules, the umpire blew the call. That said, I don't think it was an egregious blown call, but it was definitely not the right call. Oh well.

There is lots of mis-information in this thread.  Matt13 has it right on the OP, as described.  Let me try to address some of the other points; everything here relates to HS ball played under NFHS rules -- the rules and interpretations under other codes may vary:

1) It's illegal in HS ball to "hop over" a catcher (or any other fielder), unless that fielder is lying on the ground.   Even when the fielder is lying on the ground, it's illegal to dive over the fielder.  Even if the runner is obstructed, he cannot illegally jump or dive over the catcher -- these illegal acts supersede the obstruction.

2) Even if a runner illegally "hops over" the catcher, the ball remains live unless the runner actually interferes with the catcher (and interference here almost always means "contact.")

3) If a runner is obstructed, the ball always remains live.  So in some play above where a subsequent out was obtained on BR at second, that out would stand.

4) While it is true that "it is nothing until something happens," forcing the runner to slow down is "something."  The first statement would apply if F2 was blocking the plate at the time the runner was rounding third, for example.  If the runner continues toward the plate and F2 continues to block the plate without the ball, eventually this becomes OBS. There's no specific standard of when this is, but when the runner reaches the dirt circle would be a good guideline (recognizing that different fields, especially in HS have different sized circles).

5) OBS in HS requires a minimum of a one base award.  So if the runner is between third and home when he is obstructed, he will be awarded home -- even if he would have been out absent the OBS.  (assuming the runner does not do something illegal, of course.)

6) A player with the ball cannot commit OBS (absent some third-world play like an intentional trip with the left foot while the fielder is reaching out to his right having just gloved the ball).  So in some play above where there was no call on the "hop over" the catcher, the catcher would NOT have been called for OBS if he had the ball and then tagged the runner.

Batty - I actually agree with you on the discouraging the collisions.

Noumpere - If you are pointing to my example in your #3 above I agree the BR was out at 1st base.  Problem was it was Bases loaded 1 out, tie game bottom 7.  So when runner on 1st was awarded 2nd base the runner from 3rd scored.  Instead of inning ending DP game goes to extra's it became a walk off circus.

Matt13 posted:

Virginia uses FED rules, which are the most stringent on the defense when it comes to obstruction. A fielder without the ball needs to allow the runner access to the base to which he is trying to achieve. There is no exemption for being in the act of receiving a throw. Contact is not required; if a runner changes his path or slows down because of the hindrance, it is also OBS. Also, all OBS in FED is delayed dead; there is no provision for an immediate dead ball if the runner is being played upon at the time of the infraction. There is a mandatory minimum one-base award for all OBS in FED.

Thus, the way you describe it, this would be OBS and the runner should have been awarded home.

So at what point does the "slow down" take effect?  60 feet away, 30 feet, 10, 3?  When does the "blocking" become obs?  

luv baseball posted:

Noumpere - If you are pointing to my example in your #3 above I agree the BR was out at 1st base.  Problem was it was Bases loaded 1 out, tie game bottom 7.  So when runner on 1st was awarded 2nd base the runner from 3rd scored.  Instead of inning ending DP game goes to extra's it became a walk off circus.

I wasn't referring to your post directly, but to 2017LHPScrewball's.

I wasn't there to see the play (obviously), but given that it was OBS, I think it was adjudicated properly.  If F4 isn't fielding a batted ball, or doesn't have the ball, then the runner has the right-of-way.  It might sound like a "problem" and a "circus" but F4 just might be the engineer who drove the circus train into town.  You said that F4 blocked the runner and "it would have been close -- really close."  There's not much "what would have happened" to decide in this play.

A couple of years ago in a 14U championship game we had a similar play unfold.  The team on offense had a runner at third, the four hole hitter up to bat, and only one out.  The batter hit a sac fly to shallow center field, and the 3rd base runner tagged up for a play at home.  The center fielder caught the fly ball and made a strong throw to home.  The catcher set up on the line, received a one-hop, secured the ball, and stepped into the base path to make a tag.  The runner, who was at least 10 feet from the catcher, put his shoulder down and laid the catcher out.  The catcher held on to the ball and the runner was called out.  This was my recollection of the play.

The defensive team's fans went crazy, calling for the runner to be thrown out of the game.  It was a nasty collision.  The home plate umpire just pointed at the catcher, who came up off the ground and showed his glove with the ball in it then trotted off the field.

The field umpire came running up to the plate, ejected the runner from the game, and warned the runner's coach that any other infractions would result in a forfeit.  The offensive team's fans went crazy, saying the catcher was in the baseline the entire play, and the runner had to change his path.  The home plate umpire seemed visibly upset at the field umpire's ruling.

The umpires huddled, and then they called for the Director.  They all huddled, then talked to the head coaches, then huddled again.  The Director finally announced that the runner was ejected, the coach was warned again, the fans were warned, and the game resumed.

The ejected player was the starting pitcher and one of the team's best players.  I spoke to players and parents after the game, they all believed that the play was completely the catcher's fault for blocking the plate before he had the ball.  In speaking to them, I began to question what I thought happened on the play.

A few weeks later, I received a five second video clip, via email, from one of the parents on the catcher's team.  It confirmed everything that I remembered, except the catcher was set up blocking the base path from the beginning.  That said, he had the ball secured so early that the runner was three strides from him and had plenty of time to slide around the play.  The runner also never slowed down or changed his path as several parents claimed...and the collision was even worse than I remembered.

After viewing the clip, I still wonder why the home plate umpire had a problem with the field umpire's call and how so many fans for that team saw the play as legal.  So now, when I read a version of a play, such as described by the OP, I always wonder how the other side saw the play and how the umpires saw it.  My bet is that it was a completely different play in their eyes.

noumpere posted:

luv baseball posted:

Noumpere - If you are pointing to my example in your #3 above I agree the BR was out at 1st base.  Problem was it was Bases loaded 1 out, tie game bottom 7.  So when runner on 1st was awarded 2nd base the runner from 3rd scored.  Instead of inning ending DP game goes to extra's it became a walk off circus.

I wasn't referring to your post directly, but to 2017LHPScrewball's.

I wasn't there to see the play (obviously), but given that it was OBS, I think it was adjudicated properly.  If F4 isn't fielding a batted ball, or doesn't have the ball, then the runner has the right-of-way.  It might sound like a "problem" and a "circus" but F4 just might be the engineer who drove the circus train into town.  You said that F4 blocked the runner and "it would have been close -- really close."  There's not much "what would have happened" to decide in this play.

FWIW My team got the call - but I think he missed it.  The SS was going to beat him to the bag but the umpire has to make a judgment on that and he called OBS.  His partner was in no position to really offer much help from the plate. 

Runners were coached to create these issues whenever a defensive player was round.  In fact the runner from 1st was later chastised for not making contact with the 2nd baseman thereby "leaving it up to the umpire".  So that may be influencing my opinion.  I understand the lean toward safety and won't argue against the rule - only that it can put umpires in spots to make tough calls when there is no contact.

My reference to a circus was nothing more than the reaction of everyone involved.  The defensive team actually was whopping it up as they came off the field and nearly got to the dugout.  Our kids were kicking the dirt heading out of the dugout when everyone finally started to understand what the call was.  The slo motion change of emotion from one side to the other was really amazing actually.  It was a three step thing - What's going on?  He called what? What does that mean?  NOOOOO!  or YESSSSS! depending on your rooting interest. 

jdb posted:

A couple of years ago in a 14U championship game we had a similar play unfold.  ......

A few weeks later, I received a five second video clip, via email, from one of the parents on the catcher's team.  It confirmed everything that I remembered, except the catcher was set up blocking the base path from the beginning.  That said, he had the ball secured so early that the runner was three strides from him and had plenty of time to slide around the play.  The runner also never slowed down or changed his path as several parents claimed...and the collision was even worse than I remembered.

 

This play was never legal at any level below Pro ball to my knowledge.  Malicious contact is malicious contact regardless of the ball being there or not.  If the runner crushed him as described - he deserved the EJ. 

I actually never understood why blowing up catchers in Pro Ball was legal to begin with.  You never could crush a 1B on an off line throw or an infielder in a run down but it was legal at the plate for some reason.

luv baseball posted:

jdb posted:

A couple of years ago in a 14U championship game we had a similar play unfold.  ......

A few weeks later, I received a five second video clip, via email, from one of the parents on the catcher's team.  It confirmed everything that I remembered, except the catcher was set up blocking the base path from the beginning.  That said, he had the ball secured so early that the runner was three strides from him and had plenty of time to slide around the play.  The runner also never slowed down or changed his path as several parents claimed...and the collision was even worse than I remembered.

 

This play was never legal at any level below Pro ball to my knowledge.  Malicious contact is malicious contact regardless of the ball being there or not.  If the runner crushed him as described - he deserved the EJ. 

I actually never understood why blowing up catchers in Pro Ball was legal to begin with.  You never could crush a 1B on an off line throw or an infielder in a run down but it was legal at the plate for some reason.

Agreed.

Going even a little younger, my son was playing in an 11U game, just when he began playing travel baseball, and ran into the same situation -- catcher set up up the line without the ball, but got the ball and then got absolutely blown up by the runner (who happened to be my son!!) going full speed and dropped the ball. Ump ruled that the catcher was blocking the plate and ruled the runner safe. It was either the tying run or the go-ahead run, I don't remember. Luckily, no one was injured. I thought the umpire got the call wrong -- and the fans of the opposing team really thought he got it wrong! You'd be surprised at the amount of verbal abuse that adults can hurl at an 11-year-old.

In the car on the ride home I asked my son why he didn't slide. He gave the following response: "If I slid, I would've been tagged out, and I wanted to be safe." I thought that was an honest, straightforward response -- but we then had a short, direct conversation about how he was never going to do that again (and he hasn't since).

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

lionbaseball posted:

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

What is wrong with you?

lionbaseball posted:

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

Do that here and it's a good chance for ejection.  It happened a number of years ago during my son's junior year.  Non-conference game, opposing player slid into home spikes up.  Ump ruled out at the plate and ejected from the game.

Hey, I started this thread it everyone kept it classy and informative. Let's try to return to that standard. Folks can learn from these discussions. Thanks everyone.

So last year we had a play at the plate.  Ball hit and the Pillsbury doughboy rounds third.  About half way he realizes the catcher (my kid) has the ball, so he stops, turns, and heads back to third.  Takes a few steps and realizes his teammate is on third.  Turns, puts his arms up like a pulling guard and proceeds to run over my kid, nocking him on is butt.  Crowd goes wild - with dad shouting "he's got to go."  My kid stands up, shows the umpire the ball and says "I held on to it." 

Now kudos to the umpire.  The doughboy wasn't malicious.  Umpire quietly went over to the team's head coach and "tossed" the kid.  No animation, no big scene.  No hard feelings.     

Are  you sure it was not the staypuff marshmallow man.  They are kind of interchangeable, one being a bit more evil, at least in the movies.

Matt13 posted:

lionbaseball posted:

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

What is wrong with you?

Nothing.  What's wrong with you?   How else do you slide besides head first?  Btw, my son is the primary catcher and i told to not block the plate

lionbaseball posted:

Matt13 posted:

lionbaseball posted:

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

What is wrong with you?

Nothing.  What's wrong with you?   How else do you slide besides head first?  Btw, my son is the primary catcher and i told to not block the plate

You are advocating hurting a child. There is something wrong with you.

Matt13 posted:

lionbaseball posted:

Matt13 posted:

lionbaseball posted:

Runner should come in and slide with spikes up.  

What is wrong with you?

Nothing.  What's wrong with you?   How else do you slide besides head first?  Btw, my son is the primary catcher and i told to not block the plate

You are advocating hurting a child. There is something wrong with you.

I don't know how accurate this is but Wikepedia states:

"In high school, the "malicious contact" rule prevents collisions at home plate or elsewhere on the field. The defense is prohibited from initiating flagrant contact with the base runner while the offense, in turn, is required to attempt to avoid significant contact, often through the use of a slide. If the defense violates, the ball is dead and the offender ejected as the umpire awards penalties that in his/her judgment will nullify the act of malicious contact. If the offense violates, the ball is dead, the offender declared out and then ejected from the game."

We actually had a game where the catcher on one team blocked the entire plate and the runner slid with a straight legged slide.  The top cleat caught the thigh of the catcher, who was blocking the plate.  No injury but hopefully the catcher learned a lesson to prevent further injuries in the future.  

Have you ever played baseball?

It's called making a "legal slide" - 2-32-1 and 2-32-2.  Spikes up is not technically legal "if the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position"...  Malicious contact is something you know when you see it as opposed to a "train wreck" and hard play.  Consciously putting the cleats up earns you an ejection...  Legally sliding into a base/plate where the cleats do damage happens.

Rather than be confrontational about this @lionbaseball - read the context of your message again and try to think how some umpire would rule about "spikes up". It has *nothing* to do with playing baseball and has everything to do with human decency.

FED rule interpretations lean heavily on the side of player safety and sportsmanship. Heck even MLB in recent years is leaning more towards safety over the historical view of blowing up a player. I think this year we'll see some plays in the MLB game called as outs/interference where in the past would be deemed "part of the game".

JohnF posted:

It's called making a "legal slide" - 2-32-1 and 2-32-2.  Spikes up is not technically legal "if the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position"...  Malicious contact is something you know when you see it as opposed to a "train wreck" and hard play.  Consciously putting the cleats up earns you an ejection...  Legally sliding into a base/plate where the cleats do damage happens.

Rather than be confrontational about this @lionbaseball - read the context of your message again and try to think how some umpire would rule about "spikes up". It has *nothing* to do with playing baseball and has everything to do with human decency.

FED rule interpretations lean heavily on the side of player safety and sportsmanship. Heck even MLB in recent years is leaning more towards safety over the historical view of blowing up a player. I think this year we'll see some plays in the MLB game called as outs/interference where in the past would be deemed "part of the game".

How about spikes out, would that sound better? 

Didn't take long - MLB has their first controversy on this new rule.  Read on ESPN this AM about *ending* of a Jays v. Rays game that turned a 4-3 lead for the Jays into a 3-2 win for the Rays on a 9th inning *overturned* call at 2B leading to the interference call and 2 outs because Bautista (ahem) stuck his hand into the legs of the 2b-man's pivot causing his throw to 1B to sail wide.

and yes @lionbaseball spikes out is more appropriate IMO - although not sure there's any other way... Spikes down for drag? - perhaps helps on an all turf infield where I've seen more than one player slide past the bag at 2B and then have to grab onto the bag...

I think the Bautista call was the right one.  The 2B cleared himself from the bag to create a throwing lane.  I feel like Bautista reached out and tried to grab his leg but did hit it.  If his hand would have stayed on the ground and contact made then it's play on.  Part of the action but his hand left the ground and went at his leg.  This is intentional purpose to grab his leg and disrupt the throw.

HS and down this should not be that difficult.  Dropped shoulders, spikes high ( above the ankle or dirt by more than a few inches), searching out contact and no effort to avoid contact are all malicious. 

The play in the Jays game is a step in the right direction.  Costing your team a game will change the nonsense faster than anything else.

The next thing that has to go is runners inside the 1st baseline.  If you are there on any throw from behind then get an out.  That crap has to stop and coaches need to stop teaching it.  Otherwise Girardi is correct - defenses will have to be taught to smoke runners.  Pitchers armed with 95 MPH fastballs throwing at runners from 30/40 feet away might lead to some ugly stuff at some point.

What will people be saying when someone gets crushed in the neck with a throw at 90+ and is seriously injured?  He was playing hard?  Part of the game?  It's neither.  It's bush and unnecessary the same as wipeouts at 2nd and home have been forever.

Last thought - with all the money these players make if I was an owner the last thing I want is my star player getting knocked out of the lineup for weeks or months and have to pay $10-15 Million for him to get a suntan.  Why those dolts haven't outlawed this stuff 100 years ago is flatly bad business and stupid.

Posting this video to an old thread. High school game with NFHS rules. Was the call (runner out and ejected) correct? What should the runner have done?

https://youtu.be/K3ZfOIC-3fA

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Posting this video to an old thread. High school game with NFHS rules. Was the call (runner out and ejected) correct? What should the runner have done?

https://youtu.be/K3ZfOIC-3fA

The catcher had the ball when the runner was 10 feet away (not even in the dirt yet). The runner lowered a shoulder into the catcher - initiating rather than attempting to avoid contact. That's malicious contact and an ejection all day.

The runner could have tried to dodge the tag, slide feet first in front of the plate, slide hands first in front of the plate or just given himself up. Pretty much anything other than that weak Pete Rose impersonation. 

Runner is out (did the catcher have the ball in his throwing hand after the mitt came off?)

Ejection I'm 50 / 50 but could change my mind if I could see a different angle. 

Was there contact that was not a slide - yes - but I don't think it was malicious.  I don't see him changing direction to go towards the catcher but he didn't slide either but ended up on the ground.  So that's why I can see not ejecting him.  A different angle may change my mind because........

It looks he brought his arms up just before he started his fall / dive which nailed the catcher in the hands which knocked the mitt off.  This is where I can see dumping him.  

In the heat of the moment I probably toss him too but watching it 20 times I think an argument can be made not to eject him but I don't think heat of the moment saves him.  His coach didn't seem to put a lot of effort into coming out to discuss it.  I think you HAVE to come out and talk to the plate ump but you could also be telling him he made the right call but your fans / players don't know that.

uts a shame we cant really see the actual contact from this view, but I can support the EJ. Its been long enough that the rule has been in place that players/coaches know you cant truck the catcher....... 

I agree with @COACH2079 that the coach's actions following the play pretty much show resignation with the call......he wasn't really going out to argue.......... 

The runner did slide, but did not try to avoid contact, so I think its an easy ejection.

The catcher had the ball and so he was allowed to be where he was... bringing up a question: In cases like this is there anything that a runner can do other than give himself up?  In other words...could the runner have taken an extremely wide path around the catcher and not be called out of the baseline?

Wow, not what I was expecting based on a couple comments about it.  The runner was 2' outside the baseline as he was coming home.  The catcher caught the ball directly in his path toward the plate.   Looked to me like the runner tried to get inside the catcher and caught him on the way by.  Didn't see any malicious intent, though the ump blocks the view.  Don't think it's deserving of an ejection....just call the out and play on. 

I'm the original poster and just watched the video. My son is a catcher, but I'm sort of with Buckeye on this. But...three things. (1) to me the catcher WAS blocking the plate entirely BEFORE the ball arrived (but not egregious) so that should be obstruction; (2) the runner tried to move inside to get to the base when the contact was made; but (3) the runner DID bring his arms up during contact.

To me, the moment the runner brought his arms up during contact, it LOOKS, in a bang-bang play, like it was malicious and ump tossed him because HS to MLB clearly wants no collisions at home.

However, if the runner slowed up to avoid contact, which is what happened in the situation I described that started all of this over 2 years ago, I'd say the catcher should be called for obstruction and the run scores. But would that have happened...? I'd say 50/50 at best. If there was video replay, and the umpires watched it a few times, they would have called the out at home but maybe not eject the runner. But again, bang-bang play and no replay = I don't think the umpire's call nor the ejection were unreasonable.

I don't think he should've been ejected.  Yes he put his shoulders down but he had nowhere to go.  Was he bracing or a hit or was he trying to tackle the catcher?  How can you determine his intent when it's such a close play?  He was 10ft away from the bag when the throw came in but the throw was also 9ft away from the bag.  Obviously he's out anyway but unless the umpire read something malicious in his facial expression as he squared up for the hit, it's a bad call. 

K9 posted:

The runner did slide, but did not try to avoid contact, so I think its an easy ejection.

Batty67 posted:

I'm the original poster and just watched the video. My son is a catcher, but I'm sort of with Buckeye on this. But...three things. (1) to me the catcher WAS blocking the plate entirely BEFORE the ball arrived (but not egregious) so that should be obstruction; .

Neither of those is the HS rule regarding MC and OBS.

In the first failure to "try to avoid contact" makes the runner out even if F2 drops the ball (and it might also be INT, so other runners can't advance).  You need an additional level of MC to have an ejection.

In the second, it's only OBS if the entire plate is blocked *while F2 does not have the ball AND while the runner is trying to reach it."  The runner is so far away in this play when the plate is blocked that the second part of that is not true.

The video is inconclusive (in my view) on MC.

noumpere posted:

K9 posted:

The runner did slide, but did not try to avoid contact, so I think its an easy ejection.

Batty67 posted:

I'm the original poster and just watched the video. My son is a catcher, but I'm sort of with Buckeye on this. But...three things. (1) to me the catcher WAS blocking the plate entirely BEFORE the ball arrived (but not egregious) so that should be obstruction; .

Neither of those is the HS rule regarding MC and OBS.

 

In the first failure to "try to avoid contact" makes the runner out even if F2 drops the ball (and it might also be INT, so other runners can't advance).  You need an additional level of MC to have an ejection.

In the second, it's only OBS if the entire plate is blocked *while F2 does not have the ball AND while the runner is trying to reach it."  The runner is so far away in this play when the plate is blocked that the second part of that is not true.

The video is inconclusive (in my view) on MC.

Thanks for the information, that makes sense.  As a follow up - what could the runner have done?  If he went outside of the baseline to avoid contact/tag would he have been called out for that?