Malicious contact after scoring

[gobama84]

Originally posted by DG
Granted, I would have to see the play, but if the runner coming from 3rd contacts the catcher up the line, while he is receiving the ball I could see an interference ruling even if contact was unintentional. Interference is not measured by intent. If the runner has room to avoid, he should.

"Interference is not measured by intent" is true on a batted ball only. On a thrown ball you must use your judgement. After all that's why we are paid the bucks.

[Rich]

Originally posted by gobama84

"Interference is not measured by intent" is true on a batted ball only. On a thrown ball you must use your judgement. After all that's why we are paid the bucks.

This is exactly right. On a thrown ball up the line the runner and the catcher are both doing what they are supposed to do. If the runner has the chance to avoid, great. If there's a big trainwreck because the catcher moved into the runner's path to field a thrown ball, it's likely NOTHING. Well, except in NCAA and LL, where it would be obstruction, since possession of the ball is required under those codes.

--Rich

[DG]

I stand corrected. In Fed and OBR a catcher can block the plate if a play is "imminent". The minor league guideline is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate, or about 13 feet. In NCAA the catcher must have the ball.

[Hugo Tafurst2]

Originally posted by DG
Interference is not measured by intent. If the runner has room to avoid, he should.

I belive your are mistaken.
We are talking about a thrown ball.
Intent is required for interference with a thrown ball.

(Intent is not required to interfere with a fielder fielding a batted ball)

[DG]

We are splitting hairs here. If a runner touches a catcher up the line, and he could have avoided the catcher, an umpire could rule interference, ie because he could have avoided, but did not, so he intended to do so. Intent would be umpire's judgement because we can't read his mind.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Well, except in NCAA and LL, where it would be obstruction, since possession of the ball is required under those codes.

--Rich

Even in NCAA, if the throw takes the catcher into the path, it's (generally) nothing.

[Hugo Tafurst2]

Originally posted by DG
We are splitting hairs here. If a runner touches a catcher up the line, and he could have avoided the catcher, an umpire could rule interference, ie because he could have avoided, but did not, so he intended to do so. Intent would be umpire's judgement because we can't read his mind.

If the runner is running in his normal manner, to his base, I don't have interference... in fact, unless certain conditions are being met, I could have obstruction. Except when conditions are met (depending on org. - could be posession, could be "about to receive"), defense has NO RIGHT to have a runner make a decision to alter his path..

Even if the fielder is moving into the path to field the throw, it's probably only a train wreck.

To rule intentional interference, I would have to see the runner alter his direct path to the base AND determine that he is doing it for the purpose of interfereing..... MY JUDGEMENT

[DG]

Like I said in the first place, I would have to see the play, and it would be my judgement what his intent was.

[Tim C]

Generally different rules groups have decided when a catcher is legitimately receiving a throw and therefore in the act of making a play.

In the most general of terms:

In professional baseball the catcher is deemed to be making a play when the ball passes the infield grass line. Evans a has no reference to the cutout as written in this thread.

In the NCAA it is generally accepted if the ball is past a direct line from first to third base cutting through the pitcher's plate and the catcher moves into the runners path the contact is considered part of the play and is considered "nothing".

In FEDlandia there is no reference with the exception that in the umpire's judgment a play is imminent.

It seems pretty clear to me that on this play in question there was no violation and it was just baseball.

Tee



[Edited by Tim C on Apr 3rd, 2004 at 11:49 AM]

[jicecone]

T. NCAA went to a real simple rule, I believe last year.

You don't have posession of the ball, get out of the way!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by jicecone
T. NCAA went to a real simple rule, I believe last year.

You don't have posession of the ball, get out of the way!

NCAA also went for armpit strikes a few years back and that didn't take either.

Tee's descrption is accurate as to how the play is being called.

[Rich]

Originally posted by GarthB

NCAA also went for armpit strikes a few years back and that didn't take either.

Tee's descrption is accurate as to how the play is being called.

Working a D-III college game yesterday and my partner called a strike that was at the bottom of the letters -- well below the "NCAA strike" I've seen on videos. He took a lot of crap from the coach who told his player to "leave that up."

Guess they don't get the videos, huh Garth?

--Rich