Seems like we have had this discussion before but... one more time...

Reading situation 8.4.2 Situation Y
The bases are loaded with (a), less than two outs, or (b) two outs. B4 hits a ground ball to F4, who throws to F2 for the force out at home. The throw pulls F2 off home plate several steps toward the first base side. R1 seeing F2 ready to make a play on B4 at first base, touches home plate (SCORES) and maliciously crashes into F2. RULING: (a)Since this is a force-play situation, R1 and B4 are declared out and no one scores. R1 will be ejected from the game. In (b), R1 will be declared out and ejected for the contact, and no run will score.

Rule 3-3-1 n says A player who initiates malicious contact shall be ejected from the game.

Rule 8-4-2 e says the runner is out when he initiates malicious contact.

My question is, what allows me to negate an already scored run? Is there another rule I am missing or is it just this case play? Someone refresh my memory. Thanks

I have the 2003 books. Read CASE 8.4.2 SITUATION V, and 8.4.2 COMMENT.

TWO OUTS.

The "out" is for the FPSR violation, not for the malicious contact.

IF we had the same play but with no R2, then the run would score.

see 8-4-2b Penalty

FPSR still applies after the score?

This brings up another question that hs coaches ask all of the time. R2 rounding 3rd and steaming toward home for the score. Throw from anywhere and F2 is 3-4' up 3rd baseline to take the throw. Now, F2 has every opportunity to be a step or two in or out of fair territory but he chooses to block the baseline. R2 has nowhere to go. If he goes around F2 on the foul side he could miss the plate. If he goes around on the fair side he could interfere with the throw or miss the plate. If he slides he'll never make it to the plate. I understand that in Fed it is the runners responsiblity to avoid contact but if there is a collision there, what do we have. I hate to reward F2 for blocking the plate on a play that he may or may not make a clean catch and tag when R2 trucks him because R2 had nowhere to go. One could make a case for obstruction. If R2 intended to plow F2 then that's a different story but if it's just a collision do we still have an out and an ejection in FED?
Thoughts?

As you said MPC, it is the runner's responsibility to avoid the contact. The coaches and players should know the rules. If R2 initiates a collision, it is his fault and has to be penalized. However, if he avoids F2, and doesn't make it to the plate, you have obstruction to deal with and the runner should be awarded accordingly.

The next question is going to be; "Where is my catcher allowed to be while in the act of fielding the ball? He can't help it if the ball takes him up the line. He can't just let it go to stay out of the runners way."

There is a big difference between the throw taking him up the line and camping out in the line waiting for the throw.

This doesn't have to be that hard.

Okay mr. guru, what would you say if contact takes him up the line and a collision is unavoidable? Can you have "Nothing" in Fed when there is a train wreck?

Yes -- you can have this "train wreck" under all codes (excepting, perhaps, some local variation) at all levels.

I agree with Garth -- it doesn't have to be this hard.

Also, previously you asked, "FPSR applies after the score?" Again, the answer is Yes. That's the point of the case play.

Thank you, Bob. You saved me a lot of time on a busy morning. I agree completely.

Mr. Guru :)

"Where is my catcher allowed to be while in the act of fielding the ball? He can't help it if the ball takes him up the line. He can't just let it go to stay out of the runners way."

Real simple, Coach, your catcher can field the ball and stand wherever he feels like. Im just letting you know that if he obstructs the runner, I WILL award him the base. Oh, and next year if your catcher plays college ball, tell him it gets worse, he better have possession of the ball before he even thinks of being there. Have a nice day.

Good work men!!! And thank you! Thank you very much!!!

Agree, it shouldn't be that hard. Neither should giving a reasonable answer to a reasonable question. However, is explaining this situation to the coaches ever easy??? Seems like first thing the coach says is "Had a play last night where there was a crash and my was called out, ejected, obstructed..." whatever. I usually give it the "Well, I'd have to see the play and may have to be able to read intent as well as several other items." They only want to hear what they think is correct and they never know or want to agree.

Again, thanks for not hesitating about helping out a fellow umpire.

Grasshopper

Count the score
 

According to 8-3-1-n penalty you would count the score since R1 has already scored.

Greg

That's why we have umpires at the game. And you are right, when the umpire has to make a good gutsy call, one of the coaches is always going to be in disagreement.

But, if the call is made correctly and by the rules, the coach has nothing to complain about.

If the umpire isn't in his rule book and makes the wrong call, ... "that's another thread"

Thanks
DAvid

Re: Count the score
 

I can't find that reference (8-3 is Baserunning Awards). Maybe I'm missing something

I'm sorry. 3-3-1-n-penalty implies that the score counts if he commits malicious contact after touching home plate. At home the player who committed the malicious contact is merely ejected and the run scores.

Greg

I'm a little slow getting back to this and I have researched the Force Play Slide Rule 8-4-2b...

Yet Bob, I'm still at a loss. What allows me to take away a validly scored run. In general, I don't know of any other situation or rule that directs me to remove a scored run for actions after the score was made.

8-4-2b Any Runner is out when he: does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play does not slide in a direct line between the bases. Penalty: The runner is out, the ball is dead immediately, and the interference is called. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder's choice.

This definetely says the runner is out but how do I (by rule) declare a runner out after that runner has scored?

I think to negate the run is the right answer... and I would want to negate it even if it wasn't a force play... in my opinion that kind of activity is uncalled for at the High School or adult recreational level. Only in professional sports does the standard of malicious contact seem more acceptable.

But is there something that specifically says take away the run or do I just rely upon the case play and thereby interpret the rules we have discussed to also say take away the run?

Count the score
 

according to 3-3-1-n-penalty you would count the score at home.

Greg

Guys, Forget about the play taking place at home. This case situation is about the FPSL. Bases are loaded and we have the FPSL in effect at all bases. If this happened at 2nd how would you call it? The runner would be out and so would the batter-runner over at first. Why is this any different?

Now if the runner sliding into second, and maliciously crashes into the fielder there, he will also be ejected. Granted the case situation makes it sound like a run has scored but, that is not the case. No run scored to begin with, so your not taking anything away.

Don't get this confused with a runner trying to score at home, that tags the plate and then, maliciously crashes into the catcher.

Re: Count the score
 

Yes --if it were just malicious contact (or any other interference).

The FPSR carrries an extra penalty -- no run can score, all runners return to TOP. Note that on other interference in FED, runners retrun to TOI -- so any run that has scored (whether by the player committing interference or not) counts.

This is all very interesting. It is possible to score, and then create malicious contact, and not be called out for the malicious contact. But the runner would be ejected. But on the play in question:

On a force play, the runner has an obligation to legally slide up to but not beyond a base, or avoid the play entirely. R1 did neither, so he is out, and the double play is enforced. Since he made malicious contact he is ejected. Since the double play was enforced no runs score. Even if there were no outs, R1 and B1 are out, double play.

On the second subject:

In Fed, a catcher can not block the plate without the ball. If he does, obstruction, award the runner home. If the catcher has to go up the 3rd base line to receive the throw the runner should avoid him or he might be ruled to interfere with the catcher's ability to catch the incoming ball. If they should contact then the umpire makes big bucks to decide - obsruction, or interference, or incidental contact. Best thing for coaches is to tell the runners to avoid the catchers who are "up the line" and let the umpires rule obstruction. It is also the safest thing to coach, you don't want runners running into catchers. If the ball touches the catcher's mitt a millisecond before the runner makes contact, and the catcher does not hold the ball, I have nothing, unless the contact was malicious.

So if the run doesn't score does someone want to explain what 3-3-1-n-penalty is trying to say? It seems to me that this rule says that you count the score if malicious contact occurs after the runner has scored.

The run does not score, in this case, because the question started with bases loaded, and the runner violated the force play slide rule. A runner can not slide past the base and make contact with a fielder to break up a double play. This applies to home also. Since the runner made contact with the catcher past the base, he is out for FPSR violation, the runner going to first is out also. Now if this had happened when bases were not loaded the run would count, there would be no FPSR violation, therefore no out on the runner from 3rd, run scores, and he is ejected for malicious contact. That is what 3-3-1n penalty says.

Somewhere there's a statement to the effect that "ruleas and cases assume no other complications."

So, 3-3-1n says what you say it says -- but it assumes that malicious contact is the only thing )of import) that happens on the play.

In the play at hand, we have not only malicious contact but also a FPSR violation. THe FPSR violation "supercedes" the "run socres" portion of teh malicious contact rule that you've been hanging your hat on.

Thanks Bob and DJ. I now have a much better understanding of this case play and could explain why it is called this way. - Runner is going beyond the base in a force play situation and interfering. Because it is a force play situation, no runs can score, all return to positions at time of pitch. If it were not a force play situation, then deadball at time of interference and therefore a run may have already scored before the interference occurred and it would stand.

DJ, I think interference by a runner, on a throw has got to be intentional, otherwise it is just a bad throw. A catcher moving up the line and who collides with a runner as a throw arrives is incidental - bad throw, play on.

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.

Reference, please.

Fed 8-4-2g "INTENTIONALLY interferes with a throw or thrwon ball ..."

OBR 7.08(b) "He INTENTIONALLY interferes with a thrown ball"

If the runner moves into the fielder, you'd (probably) have intent. Otherwise, it's just a train wreck.

Your first sentence is not true in FED (although true in NCAA and LL). If the catcher is in the imminent act of making a play on the ball he will not be called for obstruction. What is imminent? Umpire judgment.

Also, if a catcher is pulled up the line and there is a collision, I would never have interference unless the runner's actions were intentional. Collisions happen and the catcher has no more right to receive a bad throw than the runner has to keep on heading to the plate.

For some reason, the "catcher up the line" always causes problems. The catcher up the line in the act of fielding a ball is awarded the same collision protection as anyone else. If the runner can avoid contact, he must. If the fielder has the ball, he must slide or try to avoid contact. Coaches will always say, "What can he do? He can't slide from there" as if this gives the runner license to hit the catcher. However, if the catcher has the ball up the line, then the runner can try to avoid a tag or give himself up.

"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

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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

Hmmmm,
 

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]

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.

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