Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
Literally a split second before the catcher has the ball, the runner apparently has already decided to go into a goofy head first dive. While she didn't veer left or right, or jump, she did take an alternate path to HP.
|
Through the catcher? No. Bad option.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blue
Since the runner wasn't on her feet at the time of the crash, this may absolve her of MC per NFHS rules 8-6-14 She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Penalty follows.
|
On her feet, in the air, doing cartwheels, it doesn't matter. She still intentionally collided with the catcher with a lowered shoulder. By her own admission ON TAPE, she wanted to go through her. I could see it in the video of the play, and she admitted to it afterward. Don't know what else you need.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
2-35 is a bit less direct: "Malicious contact is an act that involves excessive force with an opponent."
So to me, MC would be a situation where the runner actually has time to recognize that the defensive player actually has the ball and is waiting to apply the tag, but yet the runner decides to try to bowl her over by running upright into the defender.
I didn't see that in this case.
|
And the runner admitted to intentionally running into the catcher. As for excessive force, I resubmit
this picture from after the game. Don't think it was excessive force? Tell that to her parents who now have to drag her to the doc's office because some idiot runner decided to go all
Japanese Game Show on her.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
As far as a wreck, if the catcher had been positioned out of the runner's path and then made an attempt to field the ball that was a bit off line, and then there was a collision, I'd say that qualifies.
NFHS 8-4-3-b, which I'm sure you're all familiar with:
Art 3 A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
b. a fielder not in possession of the ball or not making an initial play on a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or BR who is legally running bases. Obstructed runners are still required to touch all bases in proper order, or they could be called out on a proper appeal by the defensive team. Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.
|
And up until the point at which the catcher had the ball, I did not see the runner slow down or deviate. I would not have OBS.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu
As mentioned, that PU had a lot going on during that play. We have the benefit of slow motion and stop action. But live, that was tough. When I see the catcher squatting on the foul line with a runner bearing down on her and the throw is coming in, simply stated she is not in possession of the ball. Yes, that split second later she does, but the runner wouldn't be able to see that or react. Had there been a call for OBS, I couldn't argue against it.
Ted
|
I never saw a slow motion version of this play, and I've got INT, MC, and an ejection.