[QUOTE]
Originally posted by LIIRISHMAN
Quote:
|
I agree up to a point.A throw 20 ft over a defenseive player's head(imho)would negate the crash rule. The rule reads in the process of or having possesion.Just because the defense is standing on the base would possibly call for obstuction.Like I said it's a HBT judgment call.
|
I can't think of
ANYTHING that justifies a flagrant baseball-style crash into a defensive player. It is not part of the game, and after watching replays of Erstad taking out Estrada in baseball last week, I can't understand or justify why it is part of OBR.
If you have a collision, the options are:
1) with minimal contact, and ball hasn't arrived, OBS and runner is safe,
2) with reasonable contact, ball and runner arrive simultaneously, a "train wreck", no call,
3) with major body-to-body contact, and either with ball, arrives simultaneously, or even on the way, INT, and runner is out,
4) same as 3) but add flagrant/unnecessary force/lowers shoulder/etc., INT, runner is out, and runner is ejected for USC.
As I read the casebook ruling and the associated plays, I believe that INT out is included in any USC collision judgement if there was any possible play that the runner was thinking s/he was breaking up with the crash. Another casebook play (8.8-53) has a crash on the 1B side of home by a runner who has scored, and that is an INT call with USC ejection and an out on the next most advanced runner; there is a ruling trend to take an INT out with any USC crash, likely to keep any runner from justifying the crash as "for the team".