Skip to main content

4 replies

Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)...

J jcwellsMember
Here's the situation; 1 out, R2. B1 hits single to center, F8 makes play on ball, throws to plate to make a play on R2 heading for home. F2 is set up for throw near plate, in fair territory, exposing rear half of plate for R2. Ball arrives on target to a crouching F2, but a few milliseconds late, as R2 slides into F2 and plate. R2 spikes F2 directly in the cup, while touching front half of the plate to score. I don't believe that the spiking was intentional, but R2 clearly did not make any attempt to avoid contact, by sliding towards the open back half of the plate. PU rules R2 safe, no call on the contact.

I've seen a number of similar no calls, on both runners and fielders, on this issue during the HS season. I'm particularly annoyed about this here in Colorado, since is was specifically brought up as a point of emphasis this year.

I'm looking forward to reading the viewpoints of the experts on this!

Cheers...

John
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
I don't get your point. In most codes it is "slide or attempt to avoid contact", not "slide and avoid contact."

You said the foot to the cup, and I'm assuming the catcher was crouching, was not intentional, so that pretty much removes malicious from consideration as it is usually defined as intent to injure.

So what exactly has you so annoyed in Colorado?
piaa_umppiaa_ump5,000+ posts
Im not seeing any call here to be made except safe or out........both players seem to be doing what they are supposed to be doing........

This could be a HTBT but absent any evidence of a malicous intent on the spiking to the cup (which you dont believe was the case)..........I cant see any OBS/INT or malicious contact call.......

Baseball has contact that is within the rules......
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
I don't see a problem either. The only reason the leaving the back half has any purpose is to avoid an obstruction call if the ball doesn't arrive in time. My son is a catche and I wouldn't say a word on a play such as this. In fact, he got wacked pretty bad this year by the other catcher. As I went to coach first base, I told him good slide. I saw a catcher get a cleat cut halfway up his forearm on a routine tag where the runner's foot hit his glove and slid up his arm. None of this is a problem.
What are you seeing that you feel is a problem? If they are sliding high, coming in standing and lowering shoulders, or similar then we have something to call.
D dash_riprock1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by jcwells:

I've seen a number of similar no calls, on both runners and fielders, on this issue during the HS season. I'm particularly annoyed about this here in Colorado, since is was specifically brought up as a point of emphasis this year.
John


John,

The Point of Emphasis to which you refer deals with obstruction (no other FED POE for 2008 is remotely close to this situation). It is about the fielder denying access to the base without possession of the ball. From that POE: "Plays where the ball, fielder and runner all converge at the same point - the 'train wreck' - are part of the game."

If the slide is legal, the runner is entirely within the rules to intentionally create as much contact as possible in an attempt to alter the play by causing the catcher to drop the ball. As long as it's not malicious, it's baseball.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×