Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue
It is now truly a matter of semantics........in the OP, if the runner stepped on the foot of the catcher who had it on home plate......the runner touched the plate.
Have you all not been taught that any part of the ball that hits the black portion of the plate also hit the white. Same reasoning........
Argue obstruction, etal. all you want.....the runner was safe as soon as she crossed the plate. By my instructions (wished I knew where the notes were), stomping on the foot of F2 as she crossed is as good as touching. Now if you want to hijack the thread and talk about obstruction and missing the plate.....go ahead.
Joel
|
Let's be clear, though, Joel, the runner touching the fielder who is touching the plate is not the runner touching the plate, so if all the runner does is touch the fielder's foot, the runner has NOT touched the plate.
What you are saying is that, due to the human running motion (e.g. heel down, foot rocks forward, pushes off with the toes), it is so highly UNLIKELY that the runner would touch ONLY the fielder's foot, that the umpire SHOULD consider this as touching the plate.
At least, I think that is what you are saying. And, taking the technical way and ruling that the runner did not touch the plate is looking for trouble with something you could not possibly see with certainty.