[greymule]

so why would anyone think to call it differently.

Because, with the removal of the "about to receive" clause, the fielder's protection of the ball being between the fielder and the runner has been eliminated. If F2 is juggling the ball and a runner unintentionally crashes into him, that runner is not out by the new rule. Last year, he was out.

No, that is not true. The previous rule only allowed the fielder to be in the base path. That's all. It did not mean a runner was out if they unintentially ran into the fielder.

This is a total contradiction of the way I interpreted the rule, and the way it was taught at ASA clinics in NJ. F2 is picking up the ball and runner runs over him—out. Ball 10 feet away and the runner runs over F2—safe. I have always thought it strange that ASA used the phrase "about to receive the ball" when they actually meant "the ball is between the runner and the fielder" as a precondition for a crash to be interference. Now I find that they meant simply "the fielder can be in the base path."

----------

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC.

That's the difference between running into a defender and crashing into a defender.

In fact, what is the runner supposed to do in this situation?: he's 20 feet from home running at full steam, and the throw bounces off F2 and rolls a few feet up the 3B line. As F2 is reaching down for the ball and the runner is now five feet away, the runner should:

a. Keep going into the catcher, who (now) has no protection by rule.
b. Slow down but get an obstruction call by running into the catcher without "crashing" him.
c. Try to avoid contact and risk having F2 pick up the ball and tag him out.
d. Stop and complain to the ump that F2 is in his way without the ball.

C. No brainer. If a player intentionally runs into a defender, that is USC. Please define "intentional" as not making an attempt to avoid the contact (my def.)

According to the rules, since F2 does not have the ball, he is guilty of obstruction if the runner collides with him. It would take a flagrant, dirty crash for me to rule otherwise.

I believe that it was in the 1998 book that ASA removed the word "deliberately" from the crash rule, with the explanation that it was too difficult to try to figure out what was in a runner's mind. Are we now again supposed to determine whether the runner tried to avoid contact?

It may be that my concept of "crash" is at the root of my confusion. I have taken the rule book to mean that there are several types of collision, among them: (1) running into a fielder, but not so hard that the contact constituted a "crash"; (2) a regular crash, which made the runner out but did not warrant ejection; (3) a flagrant crash, which warranted ejection; and (4) a wreck, which might be a severe collision, but which would be considered incidental contact (ball, runner, fielder arrive at the same time). If we're to assume that all crashes are USC unless we believe the runner tried to avoid contact, then there is no longer a "regular" crash.

As I remember, before the USC-out situation was either clarified (my state ASA guys claim that the rule was always there but we just didn't know about it) or instituted last year, a player who laid a dirty crash on a catcher who did not have the ball could be ejected for USC. However, he had not violated the crash rule since the criteria did not apply (catcher did not have possession, ball was not between runner and fielder). In fact, the fielder would have been guilty of obstruction. The runner could be ejected, but he was not called out. Starting last year, he would be called out and ejected. But to me, that would require a dirty play, not just a crash. If the throw got away and the crash occurred immediately afterward, I can't see a crash call.

Now if ASA decides that all crashes are USC outs unless the umpire believes the runner made an attempt to avoid or the collision was unavoidable, fine. Let's put that wording in the rule book.