Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball  |
The defender should not be there without the ball.
Quote:
Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.
|
A runner altering their route to plow a defender is USC.
Look at this one, F6 is standing in a position, runner crashes her.
I am to expect a runner to slide at the 30' mark between the bases?
A catcher is 15' up the line without the ball? Runner slide?
Quote:
|
Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone.
|
No, I dont have a problem with it to the point of USC. Why should I?
I believe the proposed change most certainly removes discretion. I know it when I see it, I dont need or want a medium penalty for nonUSC crash.
Quote:
|
If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC.
|
I can act right now on borderline USC anytime I want. I tell the coach and/or player to chill it. I dont need a rule to enforce a penalty on borderline USC. It is or it isnt.. if its close I can tell them to chill.
Quote:
|
As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play.
|
The "only"
Quote:
|
The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.
|
As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.
I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...