Possibly a Dumb Question

Not enough info - catcher without the ball? Catcher run into runner? Runner intentionally run into catcher? Runner UN-intentionally run into catcher? Did catcher have the ball but made a 'hard tag' and bounced off? Also, when you provide that info, you are still left with a person's interpretation of what happened - one who was actually there.

Catcher with ball, runner elects not to slide and runs upright into catcher, collision knocks catcher several feet backwards. Catcher holds on to ball ( and then if impact dislodges ball).

Intentional or not intentional...depends but catcher has ball and is attempting to tag runner and has established position. Not to confuse with incidental contact ( train wreck). Runner has ample time to attempt to avoid contact or slide but because he is in HS, he goes stupid and trys to bowl catcher over and dislodge the ball.

Just curious about Fed Rules particularly if the first runner is called out for trying to run over catcher which because of that contact enables the next runner to score. What is the ruling on the 2nd runner?

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Runner has ample time to attempt to avoid contact or slide but because he is in HS, he goes stupid and trys to bowl catcher over and dislodge the ball.

Just curious about Fed Rules particularly if the first runner is called out for trying to run over catcher which because of that contact enables the next runner to score. What is the ruling on the 2nd runner?

From this clarification, I've got malicous contact...this is an immediate dead ball....call the runner out and eject him.....second runner is returned to 3rd....

piaa_ump,

Thanks. That's kinda what I thought due to the intentional contact under FED.

Let's change scenario to something slightly different...same basic scenario but now runner and ball arrive at homeplate at same time. Catcher catches throw but is knocked over by runner that comes in standing up but no apparent intentional attempt to knock over catcher. No tag is ever made as once again catcher is sent flying.

Question...does this change anything and what happens if the ball is actually dislodged? To both runners?

quote:

Question...does this change anything and what happens if the ball is actually dislodged? To both runners?

It doesn't change much.

Under Fed rules the runner is not required to slide but he is required to make some attempt to avoid the contact/collision with the fielder (catcher). In your scenario, i.e. runner came in standing up and hit the catcher hard enough so that he was "sent flying" suggests that no such attempt to avoid was made. I would still have dead ball, runner out and the other runner returns to last base touched at time of infraction. (probably third but could be second)
The offending runner being ejected depends on whether I deem the contact to be Malicious.

Any time you tweak this scenario with "what if..." you could get a different answer or ruling.

Ultimately the call is going to be made based on what the Umpire judges to have taken place.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:


Under Fed rules the runner is not required to slide but he is required to make some attempt to avoid the contact/collision with the fielder (catcher). In your scenario, i.e. runner came in standing up and hit the catcher hard enough so that he was "sent flying" suggests that no such attempt to avoid was made. I would still have dead ball, runner out and the other runner returns to last base touched at time of infraction. (probably third but could be second)
The offending runner being ejected depends on whether I deem the contact to be Malicious.

If you do not rule malicious contact on this play and just call an out, on what basis do you kill the play and return the second runner?

Not looking for anything but opinions, not guarantees.

Based on the umpire's view of the play, his opinion could differ greatly from the blue out in the field. Just curious about a scenario I was thinking about the other night.

Guess alot could be changed by the opinion of "an attempt to avoid contact", etc.

quote:

If you do not rule malicious contact on this play and just call an out, on what basis do you kill the play and return the second runner?

Fed Rule 8-4-2b which covers illegal contact as well as force play slide rule violations.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

If you do not rule malicious contact on this play and just call an out, on what basis do you kill the play and return the second runner?

Fed Rule 8-4-2b which covers illegal contact as well as force play slide rule violations.

With R1 and R2 there would not be a force play at home.

My question is a caveat. One call not call time on just the out. You need to call interference, MC, something to justify killing the ball.

There doesn't have to be a force play for illegal contact to occur. The illegal contact by the runner in failing to attempt to avoid the catcher is interference. The rule does not only apply to force plays. The Penalty states: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and interference is called.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
There doesn't have to be a force play for illegal contact to occur. The illegal contact by the runner in failing to attempt to avoid the catcher is interference. The rule does not only apply to force plays. The Penalty states: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and interference is called.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I never said there needed to be a force play, I responded to a previous about a force play by pointing out there wasn't one in this situation.

My ONLY point has been that one cannot simply call time on the out as I read the post to suggest.

Again, as I read the post, MC would have been the most likely call if the umpire was not going to allow action to continue. Interference would have been illogical, and illegal contact, unsatisfying.

quote:

Again, as I read the post, MC would have been the most likely call if the umpire was not going to allow action to continue. Interference would have been illogical, and illegal contact, unsatisfying.

Agreed.

As PIAA says MC with the clarification. Now the craveat play, if the catcher is in the act of catching and the runner isn't trying to roll him then you can't call interference. If the fielder doesn't have the ball then the runner isn't required to attempt to avoid, it's obstruction. MC supercedes obstruction so if the runner is trying to wack the fielder it's going to cost him.