| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
bfriendly
376 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2016 : 08:22:07
|
After our games we stayed to watch some friends play each other. Squeeze play at the plate scenario. The catcher fields the ball about 5 feet down 3rd baseline and stands up to make a tag on runner coming in. They collide while basically standing straight up. I was right on the fence and I swear I saw the runner put his arms up in a Defensive position, with vertical forearms in front of his chest. The catcher was also in the same position, standing with vertical forearms blocking his chest............It was kind of scary, but it seemed as though both players used their instinctive defensive positions and protected themselves from Harms way while participating in an Awesome collision..........
THEN, the catcher drops the ball, but the runner is called out and EJECTED due to not sliding......I believe he has to miss out this am in the first bracket game too..........WOW.
Here is my problem with this....... the catcher fielded the ball up the 3rd base line and if the runner had been even beginning his slide where contact was made, he never would have reached the plate, no chance. They were so far away from home plate, I dont think it should have even been called a play at the plate. Rather a play down the line and catcher was in the way. As they both fell towards home plate, the catcher's head on the ground was not even to the plate. He fell more than his body length back towards home plate and he was a BIG KID.
I guess my question would have something to do with Is it any play involving the catcher? How far away from home plate is still considered a play at the plate?
I believe if the catcher was standing on the plate or even just in front of it, it would totally have been justified including the ejection. I believe the seasoned player running from third knew it was way to early to slide and only defended himself from an unavoidable collision........what say blue? |
|
|
DecaturDad
619 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2016 : 09:21:27
|
First, I am not an ump. But my son plays catcher. Why do you feel it is ok to run down a catcher? If it has been the short stop that blocked the base path, could the runner try to bowl him over? Remember, even that big catcher is just a kid. My son ended up in a collision at home plate last year where he ended up with an AC joint separation and missed the rest of the season. In this case, It was a true accident. But realize that even that big kid behind the plate could get hurt.
|
 |
|
|
bfriendly
376 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2016 : 09:23:59
|
| BTW- I wanted to add that the umps we had on our field all day were easily in the top few of any umpires I have had the enjoyment of watching in the last 5 years..........They were the absolute best in every way so I have to believe they made the right call. Props to them both! |
|
|
|
in_the_know
985 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2016 : 10:35:00
|
You're assessment is not correct.
The runner has to slide OR avoid contact if the catcher has the ball and is in position to make a play on the runner. While you may have heard the explanation "didn't slide", it's really a more generic term to indicate that he didn't slide or attempt to avoid collision.
You describe the event perfectly and don't really leave anything to interpretation that the call could have been anything but what was called. The ump got it right. In that scenario, the runner needs to try and stay in a rundown or sacrifice himself in order to avoid colliding with the catcher. |
|
|
|
CaCO3Girl
1989 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2016 : 08:08:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by in_the_know
You're assessment is not correct.
The runner has to slide OR avoid contact if the catcher has the ball and is in position to make a play on the runner. While you may have heard the explanation "didn't slide", it's really a more generic term to indicate that he didn't slide or attempt to avoid collision.
You describe the event perfectly and don't really leave anything to interpretation that the call could have been anything but what was called. The ump got it right. In that scenario, the runner needs to try and stay in a rundown or sacrifice himself in order to avoid colliding with the catcher.
I agree completely and would add that I could be wrong but I believe the language talks specifically about ANY collision with the catcher should be actively avoided, not any collision with the catcher AT home plate. |
|
|
|
ChinMusic
126 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2016 : 10:52:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaCO3Girl
quote:
Originally posted by in_the_know
You're assessment is not correct.
The runner has to slide OR avoid contact if the catcher has the ball and is in position to make a play on the runner. While you may have heard the explanation "didn't slide", it's really a more generic term to indicate that he didn't slide or attempt to avoid collision.
You describe the event perfectly and don't really leave anything to interpretation that the call could have been anything but what was called. The ump got it right. In that scenario, the runner needs to try and stay in a rundown or sacrifice himself in order to avoid colliding with the catcher.
I agree completely and would add that I could be wrong but I believe the language talks specifically about ANY collision with the catcher should be actively avoided, not any collision with the catcher AT home plate.
Not just the catcher... The baserunner must avoid contact with any defensive player making a play on them with the ball.
|
|
|
|
bfriendly
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 00:19:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by DecaturDad
First, I am not an ump. But my son plays catcher. Why do you feel it is ok to run down a catcher? If it has been the short stop that blocked the base path, could the runner try to bowl him over? Remember, even that big catcher is just a kid. My son ended up in a collision at home plate last year where he ended up with an AC joint separation and missed the rest of the season. In this case, It was a true accident. But realize that even that big kid behind the plate could get hurt.
I never intended to sound like its ok to run down anyone. If I did, I apologize. I was looking for rule clarification on Plays at the plate. I was under the impression(which means I dont know so will ask) that runners have a path that was theirs and if a defensive player is in the way of that path, its Interference. I am sorry your kid got hurt. My kid is also a catcher thank you very much........BTW- the only reference to the kid being BIG, was to attempt at indicating how far away they were from Home plate.
It just seemed like the runner had NO ILL Intentions whatsoever so the ejection did not seem to fit the crime, so to speak. His only chance was to stop and get into a pickle? What exactly is the rule?
I've gotten public opinion,  was looking for answers though............thanks intheknow. You always come through |
Edited by - bfriendly on 03/01/2016 09:26:49 |
|
|
|
sebaseball
101 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 11:07:34
|
| As I was reading the original scenerio, I was envisioning the runner from 3B in a dead sprint (it was a squeeze) and as the catcher fielded the ball up the line and stood up, they basically got to the same spot simultaneously. They each had a split second to brace themselves, but nothing else. If that's the case, I could argue that the runner didn't have time to slide or seek to avoid contact and the contact was incidental. In which case, the catcher dropping the ball would have resulted in the runner being safe. Or I could see the runner being called out for not sliding/avoiding, but not being ejected. The ejection part is not automatic; it's a judgement call by the umpire. To be ejected, the runner has to appear to have had the intent of malicious contact. Now, in this scenerio, if the runner had a couple of steps after seeing the catcher field the ball, then yea, he's out and the ejection sounds warranted since he could have avoided the contact & there was enough of a collision that he knocked the catcher to the ground. |
|
|
|
CaCO3Girl
1989 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 11:47:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by bfriendly
quote:
Originally posted by DecaturDad
First, I am not an ump. But my son plays catcher. Why do you feel it is ok to run down a catcher? If it has been the short stop that blocked the base path, could the runner try to bowl him over? Remember, even that big catcher is just a kid. My son ended up in a collision at home plate last year where he ended up with an AC joint separation and missed the rest of the season. In this case, It was a true accident. But realize that even that big kid behind the plate could get hurt.
I never intended to sound like its ok to run down anyone. If I did, I apologize. I was looking for rule clarification on Plays at the plate. I was under the impression(which means I dont know so will ask) that runners have a path that was theirs and if a defensive player is in the way of that path, its Interference. I am sorry your kid got hurt. My kid is also a catcher thank you very much........BTW- the only reference to the kid being BIG, was to attempt at indicating how far away they were from Home plate.
It just seemed like the runner had NO ILL Intentions whatsoever so the ejection did not seem to fit the crime, so to speak. His only chance was to stop and get into a pickle? What exactly is the rule?
I've gotten public opinion, was looking for answers though............thanks intheknow. You always come through
There is your misconception bfriendly. If the SS, C, 2B..etc is in the base-path of the runner attempting to block him like a football player without the ball and no chance of getting the ball then that IS interference. However, if that SS, C, 2B..etc is in possession of the ball, or about to be in his possession, then it is not interference and the runner must actively avoid making contact with the player, i.e. give up and be gently tagged or slide. Defensive contact of any kind is cause for immediate ejection. |
|
|
|
DecaturDad
619 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 12:14:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by bfriendly
quote:
Originally posted by DecaturDad
First, I am not an ump. But my son plays catcher. Why do you feel it is ok to run down a catcher? If it has been the short stop that blocked the base path, could the runner try to bowl him over? Remember, even that big catcher is just a kid. My son ended up in a collision at home plate last year where he ended up with an AC joint separation and missed the rest of the season. In this case, It was a true accident. But realize that even that big kid behind the plate could get hurt.
I never intended to sound like its ok to run down anyone. If I did, I apologize. I was looking for rule clarification on Plays at the plate. I was under the impression(which means I dont know so will ask) that runners have a path that was theirs and if a defensive player is in the way of that path, its Interference. I am sorry your kid got hurt. My kid is also a catcher thank you very much........BTW- the only reference to the kid being BIG, was to attempt at indicating how far away they were from Home plate.
It just seemed like the runner had NO ILL Intentions whatsoever so the ejection did not seem to fit the crime, so to speak. His only chance was to stop and get into a pickle? What exactly is the rule?
I've gotten public opinion, was looking for answers though............thanks intheknow. You always come through
No problem. I was more just trying to get people to realize the rules are the same no matter what base or defensive player is involved. In the know did a much better job of explaining that :-)
|
|
|
|
bfriendly
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 16:51:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by sebaseball
As I was reading the original scenerio, I was envisioning the runner from 3B in a dead sprint (it was a squeeze) and as the catcher fielded the ball up the line and stood up, they basically got to the same spot simultaneously. They each had a split second to brace themselves, but nothing else. If that's the case, I could argue that the runner didn't have time to slide or seek to avoid contact and the contact was incidental. In which case, the catcher dropping the ball would have resulted in the runner being safe. Or I could see the runner being called out for not sliding/avoiding, but not being ejected. The ejection part is not automatic; it's a judgement call by the umpire. To be ejected, the runner has to appear to have had the intent of malicious contact. Now, in this scenerio, if the runner had a couple of steps after seeing the catcher field the ball, then yea, he's out and the ejection sounds warranted since he could have avoided the contact & there was enough of a collision that he knocked the catcher to the ground.
This^^^mostly.
In Blue was what it seemed to me, but I was watching the catcher field the ball. The more I think about it, the runner must have also seen the catcher fielding the ball as he was heading exactly in that direction. In red was more likely what happened-I can see how the runner probably would have had time(a few steps) to make other plans to deal with the catcher who was on top of the ball quickly and up to make a tag; like go around. |
|
|
|
stanlewis
545 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2016 : 17:05:09
|
You have to teach the runner the 3 G's:
Give Up
Go Around
Go Back
|
|
|
|
mikepayne
173 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2016 : 15:43:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by sebaseball
As I was reading the original scenerio, I was envisioning the runner from 3B in a dead sprint (it was a squeeze) and as the catcher fielded the ball up the line and stood up, they basically got to the same spot simultaneously. They each had a split second to brace themselves, but nothing else. If that's the case, I could argue that the runner didn't have time to slide or seek to avoid contact and the contact was incidental. In which case, the catcher dropping the ball would have resulted in the runner being safe. Or I could see the runner being called out for not sliding/avoiding, but not being ejected. The ejection part is not automatic; it's a judgement call by the umpire. To be ejected, the runner has to appear to have had the intent of malicious contact. Now, in this scenerio, if the runner had a couple of steps after seeing the catcher field the ball, then yea, he's out and the ejection sounds warranted since he could have avoided the contact & there was enough of a collision that he knocked the catcher to the ground.
"To be ejected, the runner has to appear to have had the intent of malicious contact."
That is the key phrase,sebaseball is spot on. |
Edited by - mikepayne on 03/02/2016 16:35:27 |
|
|
|
justinm1225
207 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2016 : 11:43:10
|
7.04.C Whenever a tag play is evident, a runner must slide or seek to avoid contact with the fielder and / or catcher.
Attempting to jump, leap, or dive over the fielder and / or catcher is not interpreted as seeking to avoid contact. Malicious contact shall supersede all obstruction penalties.
Rule 7.04.C Penalty: The runner shall be called out and may be ejected from the game at the umpire’s discretion. Rule 7.04.C Comment: When enforcing this rule, the umpire 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.
That's what the rule for USSSA state. |
|
|
|
bfriendly
376 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2016 : 17:09:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by justinm1225
7.04.C Whenever a tag play is evident, a runner must slide or seek to avoid contact with the fielder and / or catcher.
Attempting to jump, leap, or dive over the fielder and / or catcher is not interpreted as seeking to avoid contact. Malicious contact shall supersede all obstruction penalties.
Rule 7.04.C Penalty: The runner shall be called out and may be ejected from the game at the umpire’s discretion. Rule 7.04.C Comment: When enforcing this rule, the umpire 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.
That's what the rule for USSSA state.
Thanks Justin.........I am sure the ump saw something I did not. Both umps were Awesome all day.....they even had a great strike zone |
|
|
|
HeyBlue
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2016 : 10:16:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaCO3Girl
There is your misconception bfriendly. If the SS, C, 2B..etc is in the base-path of the runner attempting to block him like a football player without the ball and no chance of getting the ball then that IS interference. However, if that SS, C, 2B..etc is in possession of the ball, or about to be in his possession, then it is not interference and the runner must actively avoid making contact with the player, i.e. give up and be gently tagged or slide. Defensive contact of any kind is cause for immediate ejection.
You have your own misconception here, CaCO. Blocking the base path is obstruction, not interference. A defensive player waiting for a ball can not block the base path. In some rule sets, a player reaching to catch the ball can still be called for obstruction. Defensive contact of any kind is NOT an immediate ejection. There has to be malicious contact before an ejection takes place. From what I read in the OP, I would have the runner out but not ejected. |
|
|
|
HeyBlue
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2016 : 10:20:38
|
There are some instances of "train wrecks" where contact was not avoidable and the play will be what plays out. Ball down? Runner safe.
If a catcher was able to make this play, then the runner doesn't seem to be very fleet afoot. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Home Plate Collision
