[greymule]

The crash rule will simply never stop being a problem. I wish it didn't exist. I think there were fewer injuries when the catcher was aware that he could be crashed.

A couple of years ago, I had this "crash" play in SP: R1 on 1B, B1 hit ball off fence. R1 tried to score but the throw beat him. R1, who weighed about 130, remained on his feet and crashed into F2, who weighed about 260 and probably bench pressed a lot more than that. R1 bounced off F2, who then threw to 3B to nail B1 for a double play. I'm not sure F2 was even aware that R1 had crashed him.

Nobody on either team said anything, but a few minutes later it dawned on me that a crash had occurred. So I went over and warned R1. But then I began to wonder what the correct call should have been. Out for interference on the crash and B1 out as the runner closest to home? Except R1 wasn't out until he crashed. Out for the crash and B1 goes back to 2B? No, can't penalize the defense when the offense breaks the rules. And what if F2 threw the ball away and B1 scored?

I also had practically the opposite situation, one that ended up with several players suspended by the league. I was filling in for another ump in a league I don't normally work. (Engraved invitation for problems.) The entire game was quiet until a runner tried to score the winning run in the bottom of the 7th. The throw skipped by the catcher, who in trying to block the throw had fallen to his knees in the back of the rh batter's box, and the runner ran in front of him to score standing up. Game over, but suddenly a screaming mob was in my face claiming that I should have called the runner out "for not sliding." I tried to explain that not only was the ball back at the screen, but there was no crash--not even any contact. Threats, obscenities, thrown equipment, and so on.

It seems that earlier in the year that team had had runners called out not for crashing but simply for not sliding on close plays, whatever "close" means.