I have no problem with an umpire killing this play. I would not, myself, unless this was 14U or less, but I won't fault an umpire that does.

But I cannot fathom not scoring the run. Is there even the slightest doubt that he would not have scored had you let the play continue?

(Now... throw in a pitcher seeing the catcher down and coming in to field the throw at home, and we have A) potential for additional injury should a collision occur near F2, and B) reasonable chance that the runner would not score - in that case, kill it and leave him at 3rd)

Tell me what is so much different in the play we've been discussing, than the play HHH posted in this thread.


http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...5&pagenumber=3


Tim.

It is not hard to figure out.

There is a big difference between a wacker and a play where the ball is in the outfield.

it has to be a personal matter
 

Yes, we misunderstood that Tee would never call any play the way I would, cuz I is jist sum dum sum betch don no nuthin'. But then in a very similar hypothetical situation, he is quoted as being in favor of killing the play, sending the runner back to second, and not killing it at the pro level.

So, to recap:

Tee would kill the play in a high school game if it were a serious injury.

Steve said that if he felt the injury was serious he would kill the play.

Tee said he would not kill the play at shaving age/pro ball, which is basically 18 and over.

Steve said he would not kill the play for adult leagues as well.

I see no difference in opinion here. If there is a serious, life threatening injury, or you cannot ascertain as to the extent of said injuries, then you kill the play immediately in youth ball games.

Also, Luke, the play in our situation could very easily be a wacker, and R2 sure doesn't deserve to score automatically when he started at 2B, and had barely arrived at 3B as F8 was coming up throwing. Had he been at third at the time of the pitch, I would kill the play and award home plate to the runner, and stop the BR at first base.

As evidenced by the responses in the other thread, I am not alone in my opinion.

Edited for correction

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Jan 20th, 2006 at 09:59 PM]

Re: it has to be a personal matter
 

The plays are not similar.

It is pretty hard to have a wacker when there is no defensive player around to catch the ball.

Re: Re: it has to be a personal matter
 

What is so hard about envisioning the pitcher covering the plate, since he should be backing up the plate on this play anyway?

And the situations are at least remotely similar. They involve a catcher with undetermined injuries, which may or may not be serious.

Until ther's a more imminent train wreck, I let the play continue. With a runner rounding third and F8 just releasing the thorw, there's no imminent danger to F2.

Quote:

And how could that be obstruction when R2 is still rounding third? Are you awarding "imaginary obstruction" because there may be a play at the plate? I would think you would have to wait and see if F2 hasn't been rolled out of the way.

Agreed. It's not obstruction until, well, R2 is obstructed. The play in my mind didn't match what was written -- I had R2 approaching the plate.