Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
I kind of took it that way too. If you weren't saying that to fault the catcher ... then why did you mention the catcher at all. It doesn't matter what the runner would have or would not have done.
Also - you use "crash" like it's a term we should be looking for. "Crash" is not illegal (in fact, when it IS used properly, it really means a collision for which neither party is at fault --- kind of the opposite of what you're implying
|
I merely brought up the catcher to provide some illustrative explanation as to why the runner did nothing wrong here that would warrant an out called due to a crash. The criteria needed to judge a crash are that the runner remains on her feet and contacts the fielder while upright. If the catcher wasn't present, the runner would not have met them, that's all. I'm not suggesting that you need to somehow factor in the catcher's presence to determine if there's a violation.
And the reason I use the word "crash" is because that is what is used in ASA 8-7Q and in RS #13. Yes, at the end of the day what we're really judging is whether or not the runner interferes with the fielder.