Running into catcher

Correct call by the Ump, sounds like malicious contact.  That far up the line he could have attempted to go around the catcher.

As far as the catcher being there, maybe he was just caught up in the play as a spectator and wasn't paying attention to where he was, Happens all the time.

Very much the correct call by the ump.  Do you care to site the rule that says blowing up the catcher on purpose is appropriate.  As for your stud linebacker, he should be very careful as he may just meet up with a stud offensive lineman or a stud nose tackle at catcher with bad attitudes and knowledge of aikido.

It all happened so fast.  I don't think either the catcher or runner intentionally interfered but it happened.  

I need to talk to my son, who is the backup catcher, to never do this.  Not worth the risk.  

In HS running over the catcher is never an option within the rules.  I hate when catchers are up the 3B line....seems like an unfair advantage to the defense, but that is the rule.

On a close play a catcher can virtually block the sliding lane, use his shin guards to block, and the runner has few options other than a hard slide, or going wide, and hope to sweep the plate with hand.... Problem is, I don't see a good fix, since you don't want what happened in your game to occur.  I'd like to see a catcher have to provide some type of lane, and not be able to sit in the lane.

I'm all about safety, but in that case I think the umpires should have the right to let that play go....especially if it was very obvious that the catcher wasn't going to receive the ball.  If a team is doing things the right way, the on-deck batter would already be at the plate with his hands up telling the runner not to slide....but if he's not, the runner is trying to score and a catcher with no ball is in his way.  To me it's the catcher's responsbility to get out of the way in that case.  If the ball is coming and he's going to have a play...fine, the rule as it is works....but I don't like the catcher being able to put the runner into a bad situation. The catcher can see the play happening in the field......the runner can't.

This is twisted logic.  "I'm all about safety"…"obvious the catcher was not going to receive the ball"…"catcher's responsibility to get out of the way"…therefore take him out.  What part of this logic is about safety?

I don't think that is what Buckeye was implying.  But hopefully the catcher in our particular game learned a valuable lesson to make the play at the plate instead of 15 ft up the line. 

There's lots of ways for players to learn lessons.  This shouldn't be one of them.  Certainly not at the high school level.

Without being there to see it, based on your description your base runner sounds like a hot head who intentionally trucked the catcher. There wasn't a play, the catcher was up the line and his team wasn't in the game. There was no need to make contact.

May I assume the runner started the play at some base other than third base?  Normally when runners come around third base and run toward home, they are in foul territory the entire time from the time they round third base until just before they touch home plate.

The runner can round the base and run as far into foul territory as his speed and turning radius dictate.  There is no such thing as a "running lane" between third and home, and your concern about "going outside the line too far" also has no basis in the rules.  

A catcher who is standing on the third base line fifteen feet up the line from home plate is not in position to obstruct such a runner.

Given that there was no play at the plate and the catcher was standing where runners do not usually go, I cannot imagine this contact happening unless the "stud linebacker and fullback" altered his course in order to create the contact.  

I wasn't there.  I didn't see it.  But malicious contact is the call I would expect from your description.

Oh, and the hit probably wouldn't have been legal in football, either.  Stud linebacker and fullback needs to calm down.

By Texas rules... And I THINK nationwide HS and college... there isn't any grey area to debate; runner must slide or avoid contact entirely. If C is obstructing in anyway, ump can rule runner safe regardless of tag. That's my layman's understanding anyway.

Anything else you can tell me about this player that you've never seen and weren't there to witness what happened?  

Swampboy made a good point that I didn't clarify.  

The runner started on 3rd base, so he was just outside the 3rd base line toward the dugout.  And I could be wrong on this but I don't think the runner deviated toward the field side of the line to try to take out the catcher. 

I believe the umpire made his ruling to avoid a heated argument between fans.  The game was clearly going to be won by the opposing team.  

Like I said, my opinion is I don't believe either catcher or the runner intended to get in each others way as the play happened so fast. 

It's nice to be selective on what you posted and take someone out of context. You failed to post the rest of the sentence ... BASED ON YOUR DESCRIPTION. 

Let me see, a linebacker playing baseball, trucking a catcher when there's no play and the game isn't close. I've seen enough baseball over the years to make a decent assumption regarding the runner's intent. Is he getting suspended on top of being tossed from the game? Many high school leagues tack suspensions on top of ejections.

I suspect if the catcher trucked the runner the opposite result would have occurred: catcher gets tossed.

Thanks for the additional information.  Was it a sac fly or a ball hit to an infielder or a clean hit?  I still don't understand how the catcher would have had a reason and sufficient time to   wander that far up the line.  But that's ok.  It doesn't change much.

Runners are supposed to slide or attempt to avoid contact with defensive players.

When a runner runs over a defensive player standing still right in front of him, it's going to go down as malicious contact, whether the defensive player should have been there or not.  

What should the runner do?  He should slide (not applicable this far from the plate) or try to avoid contact and still try to score.  If he gets tagged because of the delay, the umpire can make a ruling on obstruction.  However, malicious contact always overrules obstruction, so if it had been a close play with a potential obstruction call, running over the catcher took that option off the table.

I'm not in disagreement about the final ruling since it is a rule after all. 

I used it as a lesson for my son to never be in the baseline unless he is at the plate.  

Catchers that don't get run over in high school maybe in for a shock at higher levels.  

"In college, the "flagrant collision" rule discourages, but does not prohibit, collisions at home plate and on the bases."

I'm sure if you were at the game and the baserunner was on your team you would be advocating suspension.  

How about getting the police involved while you are at it?  Or better yet, jail time, suspension of drivers license for 5 years and a $5000 fine?  

Reminds me of the Ghostbuster scene where the characters exaggerate the approaching calamity. 

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Hard to make a judgment without actualing seeing the play, but I will say this.  My son played the catcher position for many years in travel ball and in HS.  The only time he would have gone up the 3rd base line was if the throw from wherever (usually outfield) drew him up the line.  Otherwise he was in front of home plate - close enough to make a tag but allowing sufficient room for the runner.

I have to agree with the initial call.  Even coming from 3B a few feet into foul territory the runner has enough room to avoid the catcher.  The collision as described sounds malicious.  Had a similar call last summer in a legion game.  Catcher caught the throw about 10-12 feet up the line seconds before our runner collided with him.  Runner was called out and ejected.  At the time I agreed with the call, but not the ejection.  I didn't think the hit was malicious, but he explained afterwards he felt the runner could have avoided the catcher.

I've decided your more of a troll and board antagonist than baseball dad. A majority of your posts are designed to incite confrontation. Please take your antagonistic and sarcastic crap someplace else.

If the runner was my son, if his coach didn't rip him a new one I'd be doing it to him on the way to the car for pulling a bush play. I can't think of one situation where it's necessary to truck a catcher when there's not a play at the plate regardless of where he's standing.

I think you just don't like someone disagreeing with you.   

As the Dad I respect your authority to rip your son if needed.  However the entire incident blew over within 5 minutes of it happening.  Even our coach went over to tell one of the high school kids in the stands to shut his trap for loudly arguing from the stands.  

Have a beer on me and relax! 

At my sons school they have a very experienced umpire come in at the beginning of the season.  He explains all the rules and goes over any new rules and has an open question session for the players to give scenarios.  blocking the plate was one of the questions.  He stated, very emphatically, that even when the catcher has the ball he could not entirely block the plate and that the more experienced umps would call obstruction on the catcher if they did that.  Haven't seen it happen yet this season though.

From reading the OP, its hard not to have malicious contact......with no play at the plate, the runner had no reason to truck the catcher even if the catcher was in the baseline...

Malicious contact is a point of emphasis again this year in the mandatory NFHS Umpire/Coach rules presentation.... I highly doubt the umpire made that ruling to keep fans from arguing..........its was pretty cut and dried...runner out and ejected...

let me make it formal:

A runner may not maliciously crash into a fielder, whether or not the fielder is in or out of the base path, or with or without the ball. 3-3-1n

The ball is immediately dead. The runner is out and ejected.

Might want a different "experienced" umpire. If a fielder has the ball, he can block to his heart's content.

Lefthook:

Although it may be a rule you can't have a C entirely block the "entire" plate, I don't know of any umps that are going to argue what "entire" plate is.   I also have never in many instances where that has happened, seen that overrule a play at the plate.  That's part of my frustration, in that I believe the runner should have a lane that extends to every base including home plate.  Unfortunately, I've seen catchers who know how to use his leg guards able to sit in the lane in front of the dish.  Wish I'd see an ump like the one you are referencing in one of those situations.

What's missing in this thread is a breakdown of the relevant issues.

What I see is F2 taking a position which is potentially obstruction. When this happens, the runner is awarded at least one base beyond his position at the time of obstruction. 

The next thing I see is what is most likely malicious contact by the runner. Offensive malicious contact supersedes obstruction, and the penalty is that the runner is out and ejected. So, thus far, I think we have the right call.

That being said, almost anytime there is a question of MC and/or OBS, it is something that has to be witnessed to be definitive. As this thread points out, details are key, and all can be relevant.

Also, there is no requirement to "slide or avoid contact," as has been mentioned. The responsibility of the runner is to slide or attempt to avoid initiating unnecessary contact. Sometimes, shit happens, to be blunt.

Matt,

I agree that the phrase does not appear in a rule, but it is the exact language used in the points of emphasis discussion in this year's NFHS book, and it's not a bad paraphrase of the converse of the first part of 8-4-2-b, which says a runner is out when he "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play."  Granted, there is lots of legal, incidental contact.

It is a bad paraphrase, because it leads people to believe that all contact is illegal. Note that 8-4-2b refers to illegal contact, not just contact. This statement has been around for many years at all levels where restrictions exist, and is the bane of the umpire who understands the distinction, and the participant who does but has an umpire who doesn't.

I can accept that, and I tried to acknowledge the presence of "illegal" in my comment.

However, it's still good advice to give players on what to do when they're under full steam and there's a defensive player between them and the base they're about to reach.

The home plate umpire made a judgement call that it was malicious.  Malicious is defined as " intending or intended to do harm".  The play happened so fast (remember the runner started from third, and the catcher was 15 ft or so towards third base) that I would find it hard to believe the runner had enough time to think about intent to do harm.  

Now look at the video of Posey getting hit;   http://youtu.be/0j0GESR2YbA.  The runner actually goes out of his way to hit Posey.  This is malicious. 

My opinion, which matters nothing in the outcome, was that it wasn't malicious but one of those "shit happens".   It was contact, hard at that.  Another umpire may not have thought it malicious.  In the end an out plus ejection won't bring back an injured catcher so, to sound like a broken record, I would rather my catcher to not block the lane or plate entirely. 

Malicious contact, in FED, also means (for example) contact that is excessive and/or unnecessary, as well as that intended to do harm.

baseballmania, 

It may be helpful for you to see the three factors umpires are asked to consider as they make their judgment on malicious contact.

Please bear in mind these are suggestions, not ironclad rules.

Contact or a collision is considered to be malicious if 

(1) the contact is the result of intentional excessive force, 

(2) the contact occurred above the waist of the receiving player, and/or

(3) there was intent to injure.

What's interesting about these factors is that lack of malice and lack of intent may not get you off the hook.  

They really are trying to eliminate these collisions at the plate.

Well that makes sense.  The umpire made the call and even our head coach nodded agreement after he consulted with the plate umpire.  

I'm just glad the catcher was alright because he wasn't that big of a kid. 

You mean when these collisions get banned in professional baseball as early as, say, tomorrow? I read a tweet earlier today that MLB is expected to release a memo detailing home plate collisions tomorrow. There have been many managers who have voiced opinions that these collisions should be banned. I expect that they will be to some degree starting in the 2014 season...

High school baseball there is NEVER a reason to "truck the catcher" EVER. I don't care if he's standing 15 feet from home plate in the base path making "Big Mama" jokes.

This runner, based on your description, should have been out, ejected, and suspended.

You are right.  In addition, I think our runner should have been whipped with a wet noodle 50 times to send a strong message. 

And I'm sure new rules in the MLB will eliminate forever a catcher being run over because we know that catchers never get run over in high school. 

I hope that if my son has the talent to play college ball he uses this as a learning experience as a runner and as a catcher.

Not around hear. Since this guy was elected to the High School Hall Of Fame as an Umpire, I'll take his word over yours.....lol

"If a fielder has the ball, he can block to his heart's content...." this is a correct statement and application of the rule, your HOF Umpire is not correct or was not heard correctly. No Umpire should call obstruction if the fielder "has the ball" and is blocking any base. "Has the ball" means in his secured posession.

I generally use "Get down, go around or give up."

if F2 is where he is not supposed to be (not a rule based description, to be sure), then doing any of the above will be OBS and the runner will be awarded the base.

If the runner ignores the above and trucks the catcher then it's MC and the runner is out and ejected.

Note that you can have an out on a play like this where the contact does not rise to the level of MC and you might have other runners return if it's also INT.

(HS rules)

Add another vote to either the HOF umpire got it wrong or was mis-heard.