Rob I think this is a case where there isn't enough information to make that assesment of being safe on a slide.
If you look at pic #1 the runner isn't in the pic yet although you can see his shadow. He might far enough away the catcher could have time to make the tag if he slides.
Also, if his momentum took him wide around third then he wouldn't have a great angle to reach the plate since the catcher is to the outside of the line. The runner would have had to cover a lot of ground to make a slide.
*****EDIT*****
After reading my last two posts I hope I am not coming across as a know it all jerk. It's hard to really know what happened from three pics or what could have happened. That is the way I interpret the pics and others may see them differently.
Abrams, my comment re obstruction is when the runner will easily make it to the advance base and no play on him is even being made. If obstruction occurs, the umpire will only award the next base if that is all the farther he believes he would have gone. It just seems a little unfair that the defense can commit an infraction of the rules and the penalty is what you would have had anyway. And yes this is applicable to any base. The only difference with home is that there is not a next base and with runners elsewhere there exists the possibility they might be allowed to advance to the next base(s) depending on the umpire's judgment.
Kimosabe,
I understand what you are saying...but what type of penalty would make sense other than the present rule. Advance other baserunners another base for obstruction that had no bearing on what they did or their ability to reach the next base? Wish I knew the answer.
Are obstruction rules totally 100% foolproof and perfect? Probably depends on the point of view. Doubt any rule on obstruction would make everyone happy. Any ruling that is judgement based will always leave somebody thinking they got the short ennd of the stick.
I understand what you are saying...but what type of penalty would make sense other than the present rule. Advance other baserunners another base for obstruction that had no bearing on what they did or their ability to reach the next base? Wish I knew the answer.
Are obstruction rules totally 100% foolproof and perfect? Probably depends on the point of view. Doubt any rule on obstruction would make everyone happy. Any ruling that is judgement based will always leave somebody thinking they got the short ennd of the stick.
Well I always thought that the runner had the right of way when the catcher did not have the ball.
My son was involved in a play at home, he was the runner and he ran over the catcher who was about 7ft. up the line because of a bad throw form the outfield. Catcher missed the ball and stood right on the base line about the same time my son was comes flying down the line and see's catcher and puts his arm up to his chest to protect himself and bowled over the catcher. This was 12U ball; I thought there was going to be a fight at a 12U game between coachs and kids. Both my son and catcher hit the ground and he rolled over the catcher and across the plate. That was about 7ft. of rolling and another 15 minutes to get a decision from the umpire, because of coaches arguing. I was score keeper and a poor example that night and I was yelling obstruction. Well that night the umpires said it was obstruction.
I did further research on the rule and it turns out that the runner has to make an attempt to avoid contact with the fielder. Or the runner would be thrown out of the game because of “malicious contact”, which is not making an attempt to keep things save. It is at the umpire discursion to enforce the rule, the way I understand it.
My son and me know now, he to is a catcher and it clarified what his boundaries are as a fielder. He was lucky that night because the umpire did not know the rule.
Respectfully yours,
drill
My son was involved in a play at home, he was the runner and he ran over the catcher who was about 7ft. up the line because of a bad throw form the outfield. Catcher missed the ball and stood right on the base line about the same time my son was comes flying down the line and see's catcher and puts his arm up to his chest to protect himself and bowled over the catcher. This was 12U ball; I thought there was going to be a fight at a 12U game between coachs and kids. Both my son and catcher hit the ground and he rolled over the catcher and across the plate. That was about 7ft. of rolling and another 15 minutes to get a decision from the umpire, because of coaches arguing. I was score keeper and a poor example that night and I was yelling obstruction. Well that night the umpires said it was obstruction.
I did further research on the rule and it turns out that the runner has to make an attempt to avoid contact with the fielder. Or the runner would be thrown out of the game because of “malicious contact”, which is not making an attempt to keep things save. It is at the umpire discursion to enforce the rule, the way I understand it.
My son and me know now, he to is a catcher and it clarified what his boundaries are as a fielder. He was lucky that night because the umpire did not know the rule.
Respectfully yours,
drill
Under FED rules, the catcher is never, ever "fair game." Please don't tell people this. Slide or avoid contact. Incidental contact may occur, but telling coaches/players the catcher is "fair game" is simply wrong.
From these pictures it looks to me like an ejection. I don't work FED nor NCAA, but, Babe Ruth, Legion, CABA, Pony and USSSA, this looks like an ejection. The onus is on the runner to attempt to avoid the collision. Again we can't see what the runner attempted to do in avoiding the collision if anything. But I see the catcher with the ball, waiting to make a tag, and it "appears" the runner simply plowed him. Regardless whether the catcher is bigger, has equipment, or that the runner was trying to stop, the rule specifies "slide or attempt to avoid".
Now I did see a great collegiate clip last year where: F2 is awaiting to make the tag, runner veers to his left as he nears the plate, which drew F2 towards the infield, the runner then veered left just a couple steps from his dive attempt, runner dives to his right, to F2's left, in an attempt to reach the plate. As F2 reached to his left to make the tag, the runners left shoulder contacts F2's left knee causing an at least game ending injury to F2. F2 lossed the ball on the contact, the call "safe", the dive was an attempt to avoid, get around the catcher, that would be a "train wreck".
Collisions will happen, same play as the photos, a hard slide directly into F2, may very well have caused injury to F2, but the runner met the requirement, same play and the runner tries to go around F2 standing up, but F2 is quick enough to move in front (like taking a charge in hoops) the runner still meets the requirement to attempt to avoid, umpire judgement all the way.
Slide (but must be a legal slide) or avoid" is the rule, not "no collisions".
As to the Collegiate summer league's yes I've worked those too, and yes they (at least the league I worked) this is allowed just like, the bigs. I don't agree, but, I'm not out there to opinionate on the rules, just enforce em.
Here is the exact quote from the USSSA rule book, which is constant for all youth leagues played under OBR, and IMO is consistent with Fed and NCAA as well. Though I don't work those I know that the youth leagues have taken "safety rules" from the FED rules.
"WHENEVER a tag play is evident, all runners must slide or seek to avoid contact with the fielder. Malicious contact shall supersede all obstruction penalties.
PENALTY: Runner shall be called out and may be ejected from the game at the umpire's discretion.
NOTE: When enforcing this rule, the unmpire should judge the runner's intent. If the umpire feels that the contact was unintentional, then the runner should only be declared out. If the umpire feels that the contact was intentional and /or malicious, then the runner should be declared out and ejected.
Now I did see a great collegiate clip last year where: F2 is awaiting to make the tag, runner veers to his left as he nears the plate, which drew F2 towards the infield, the runner then veered left just a couple steps from his dive attempt, runner dives to his right, to F2's left, in an attempt to reach the plate. As F2 reached to his left to make the tag, the runners left shoulder contacts F2's left knee causing an at least game ending injury to F2. F2 lossed the ball on the contact, the call "safe", the dive was an attempt to avoid, get around the catcher, that would be a "train wreck".
Collisions will happen, same play as the photos, a hard slide directly into F2, may very well have caused injury to F2, but the runner met the requirement, same play and the runner tries to go around F2 standing up, but F2 is quick enough to move in front (like taking a charge in hoops) the runner still meets the requirement to attempt to avoid, umpire judgement all the way.
Slide (but must be a legal slide) or avoid" is the rule, not "no collisions".
As to the Collegiate summer league's yes I've worked those too, and yes they (at least the league I worked) this is allowed just like, the bigs. I don't agree, but, I'm not out there to opinionate on the rules, just enforce em.
Here is the exact quote from the USSSA rule book, which is constant for all youth leagues played under OBR, and IMO is consistent with Fed and NCAA as well. Though I don't work those I know that the youth leagues have taken "safety rules" from the FED rules.
"WHENEVER a tag play is evident, all runners must slide or seek to avoid contact with the fielder. Malicious contact shall supersede all obstruction penalties.
PENALTY: Runner shall be called out and may be ejected from the game at the umpire's discretion.
NOTE: When enforcing this rule, the unmpire should judge the runner's intent. If the umpire feels that the contact was unintentional, then the runner should only be declared out. If the umpire feels that the contact was intentional and /or malicious, then the runner should be declared out and ejected.
Drill,
I wasn't there but if the catcher stepped into the runner going after an errant pitch (doesn't matter if he misses or catches it)at the last second you've got a train wreck. Obstruction would be the only call I could see an ump making in this case ( 7 feet up the line, no ball and in the basepath).
Only problem I see is your son raising his arms...had a HS ump tell us in the Fall League that'a an automatic out and ejection in his book. Personally, I disagree with that particularly in a last second trainwreck. Ump had ejected a player in the prior game for this in a very bad call. Bases loaded, 0 outs...batter tops one right in front of the plate about 10 ft out. Pitcher fields the ball, catcher is yelling "1-1-1" as the 3b runner with a great jump has it made easily. Pitcher instead backhands the ball late to the catcher, bad throw taking him right into runner's path who is right on top of him now and beaten the throw by about 6 feet. Catcher wasn't prepared, runner wasn't either..runner raises hands palms open and collides with catcher. Both go down into a heap. Absolutely no way to avoid contact, even sliding he was going to kill the catcher due to the bad throw. Runner out and ejected as I said.
As a catcher I would have been ejected also....for cussing my pitcher out for being so stupid. Trust me, that discussion would last alot longer than the coaches arguing with the ump about the call. Heaven help the pitcher if he said a single word while I was "discussing" what he did wrong.
In the pictures of the collision, I have a trainwreck. Catcher had set up in fair territory awaiting the throw ( look at right leg; he has stepped to the left and dragged the right)but moved into foul territory to catch the throw. Contact is made in foul territory (fair/foul isn't important for obstruction itself but explains what happened here); if catcher is set up inside baserunners are taught to go to the back of the plate; catchers are taught to give the runner part of the plate to slide to WHEN YOU DON"T HAVE THE BALL to reduce the chance of injury ( catcher sets up inside of baseline, gives runner back half of plate). Once the catcher makes the catch, they are taught to take away the plate ( block the plate). Catcher is in a very poor blocking position and I can't say the runner really lowered a shoulder for malicious contact ( being summer ball the contact is probably allowed depending on the league); neither was prepared for contact or deliberately intiated it is what I see.
Wham Bam Thank you Mam...runner is out as catcher made the tag but no ejection would be my call. IMO
I wasn't there but if the catcher stepped into the runner going after an errant pitch (doesn't matter if he misses or catches it)at the last second you've got a train wreck. Obstruction would be the only call I could see an ump making in this case ( 7 feet up the line, no ball and in the basepath).
Only problem I see is your son raising his arms...had a HS ump tell us in the Fall League that'a an automatic out and ejection in his book. Personally, I disagree with that particularly in a last second trainwreck. Ump had ejected a player in the prior game for this in a very bad call. Bases loaded, 0 outs...batter tops one right in front of the plate about 10 ft out. Pitcher fields the ball, catcher is yelling "1-1-1" as the 3b runner with a great jump has it made easily. Pitcher instead backhands the ball late to the catcher, bad throw taking him right into runner's path who is right on top of him now and beaten the throw by about 6 feet. Catcher wasn't prepared, runner wasn't either..runner raises hands palms open and collides with catcher. Both go down into a heap. Absolutely no way to avoid contact, even sliding he was going to kill the catcher due to the bad throw. Runner out and ejected as I said.
As a catcher I would have been ejected also....for cussing my pitcher out for being so stupid. Trust me, that discussion would last alot longer than the coaches arguing with the ump about the call. Heaven help the pitcher if he said a single word while I was "discussing" what he did wrong.
In the pictures of the collision, I have a trainwreck. Catcher had set up in fair territory awaiting the throw ( look at right leg; he has stepped to the left and dragged the right)but moved into foul territory to catch the throw. Contact is made in foul territory (fair/foul isn't important for obstruction itself but explains what happened here); if catcher is set up inside baserunners are taught to go to the back of the plate; catchers are taught to give the runner part of the plate to slide to WHEN YOU DON"T HAVE THE BALL to reduce the chance of injury ( catcher sets up inside of baseline, gives runner back half of plate). Once the catcher makes the catch, they are taught to take away the plate ( block the plate). Catcher is in a very poor blocking position and I can't say the runner really lowered a shoulder for malicious contact ( being summer ball the contact is probably allowed depending on the league); neither was prepared for contact or deliberately intiated it is what I see.
Wham Bam Thank you Mam...runner is out as catcher made the tag but no ejection would be my call. IMO
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
Bear I don't agree that this play deserves an ejection...
When contact is made by the runner his feet are under him and his body is in an almost straight up and down position.
Another peak says
- Baserunner pretty much made contact with catcher.
- Baserunner stopped in tracks by catcher, but in some aspect, may have gone head-hunting (or is simply a way below average base-runner.
- Yes, catcher's media collatoral is exposed.
- The standing up by baserunner is a result of the being stopped cold and uprighted by catcher.
- Since this catcher is now a member of the pitcher's guild (or should be), #37 could be thinking about a Drysdale high tower should he see the plate again.
- Plate is clearly visible.
quote:- Baserunner stopped in tracks by catcher, but in some aspect, may have gone head-hunting (or is simply a way below average base-runner.
Bear - no need for below-average comments like that or is it you have a below-average IQ? I shared the picture to point out that he was not ejected. From your angle you can see the plate (apparently, because I can't). From his angle he could not see any plate. The pictures make it look like he had all day to make a decision like you apparently have. In reality there was no time as it was bang, bang. He was congratulated by his teammates and coach. He was not buzzed his next time up. He did not head hunt and the catcher did not take offense.
Bear - I didn't really understand some of your post especially the part about the "peak".
Also, we can't say for sure what the baserunners intentions are from 3 pics. But I am basing my opinion that it was a clean play and no ejection needed on two things.
1. Looking at the evidence from the pics and guessing it was a bang bang play. Also, if the runner wanted to really run over the catcher then the catcher's mask would be flying off (It almost comes off in pic 2) and the runner would be laying on top of him. He is stood up because he was (in my opinion) trying to stop.
2. I think ClevelandDad is telling the truth because his posts are honest and insightful overall. He doesn't get on here and make crazy statements. He says it was a bang bang play and his son didn't have time to do anything then he didn't.
Also, we can't say for sure what the baserunners intentions are from 3 pics. But I am basing my opinion that it was a clean play and no ejection needed on two things.
1. Looking at the evidence from the pics and guessing it was a bang bang play. Also, if the runner wanted to really run over the catcher then the catcher's mask would be flying off (It almost comes off in pic 2) and the runner would be laying on top of him. He is stood up because he was (in my opinion) trying to stop.
2. I think ClevelandDad is telling the truth because his posts are honest and insightful overall. He doesn't get on here and make crazy statements. He says it was a bang bang play and his son didn't have time to do anything then he didn't.
Coach2709 has it right. The runner is vertical, not trying to bowl the catcher at all. He knows he's out, and is only protecting himself. His elbow is tucked protecting himself, not stuck out at F2.
Sometimes contact is unavoidable, and neither player has violated a rule. This is a clean play in any code unless there is a mandatory slide rule, and FED, NCAA and Pro have no such rule.
Sometimes contact is unavoidable, and neither player has violated a rule. This is a clean play in any code unless there is a mandatory slide rule, and FED, NCAA and Pro have no such rule.
quote:This kind of falls in the same vein as the "foul pole" which we all know is the fair pole...but common usage is to call it the foul pole.
hope this helps you see it the way we do.....
So do we all know it's the "Fair Line"?
with regard to the high school rule to avoid contact, if the catcher is u the line with out the ball and forces the runner to run around him then you have obstruction, give the delay dead ball signal and let play continue, if contact is made and it is malicious then that super cedes the obstruction. A player without the ball in his possession cannot impede the runner.