Quote:
|
Originally posted by greymule
|
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 himout. Ball 10 feet away and the runner runs over F2safe.
And that is still true if it is a batted ball. But since we are discussing obstruction, that isn't the case.
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."
I think you are confusing apples and oranges. This is not an interference issue, it is a matter of the condition of obstruction. At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.
----------
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 ballall crashes would be outs for USC.
Define "crash".
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.
Thank you. You just made my argument!
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?
That was never something an umpire wasn't suppose to do. Once again, define "crash".
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.
To start, there is no longer a "wreck" when it involves possible obstruction. Either the fielder has the ball, or not.
Contact does not mean it is a "crash". You cannot expect a runner to stop on a dime just because a fielder steps in the basepath with the ball. If that runner does anything which makes me believe s/he is checking-up, they will be called out, but not ejected.
If that fielder is in the basepath without the ball, that is obstruction, but not open season. Once again, if the runner gives any indication of trying to avoid contact, they are okay.
Now, if there is a fielder, with or without the ball, in the basepath (or for than matter anywhere else) and a runner gives no indication of avoiding a collision crashes into the fielder, it is a dead ball, the runner is out and ejected.
Yes, it is going to be my judgment. I don't need to read minds to see whether a runner is mean spirited or not.
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.
You memory is correct, but now you need to forget about whatever it is you refer to as "dirty play". If the throw gets away, it does NOT give the runner the right to plow over the fielder whether they are in the basepath or not. Such a play is now obstruction, however, if that runner continues or increases the speed of their advance and hits that fielder, they will be declared out and ejected.
I had a kid a couple of years ago rounding 3rd. He was more than 30 feet away when the catcher tried to catch the ball. The runner was more than 20 feet away when the ball bounced away from the catcher. The runner continued to advance to the plate at the same speed, crossed his arms in front of him and ran over the catcher. My ruling was easy. Run scored (today, it wouldn't), runner ejected. What did the runner have to say? "I crossed my arms to protect myself". I'm sure the catcher with the broken nose was sympathetic to his reasoning. What was worse is that his team had no substitute and had to forfeit the game (they were leading 7-2, bottom 5). Even better was that no one on that runner's team complained to me, but gave their teammate a raft of sh**.
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.
The only thing I believe they need to add to the book is the connection with USC and a called out. Other than that, I think we have all the rules we need on the subject.
JMHO,
[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 8th, 2004 at 04:28 PM]