Squeeze play situation

[TwoBits]

This happened this weekend, USSSA rules played under OBR with typical safety related modifications:

R3 coming home on a suicide squeeze. The bunt is laid down about 3 feet in front of home plate. R3 and catcher collide just as R3 touches home plate. Contact by R3 not malicious, but does knock catcher away from the play far enough that speedy batter winds up safe at first base.

Now I know that if the batter and catcher collide on a bunt, it is typically ruled the proverbal "train wreck" and play on. How about this situation? What if this occured and contact between R3 and catcher occured before R3 touched the plate?

[BigUmp56]

You have to ask yourself if R3 could have reached the plate safely by attempting to avoid the catcher, or did the catcher suddenly move into his basepath in an attempt to retire the runner. Sounds more like a train wreck to me. They both appeared to be doing what they were supposed to be doing.



Tim.

[edited to remove the preposition my last sentence ended on]LOL

[LMan]

HTBT, but the thought on train wrecks is, "are both players where they should be, doing what they need to do?"

If so, play on. A ball 3 feet in front of the plate would put F2 about on top of the plate, so absent intent I dont see dinging the runner for anything here.

[mcrowder]

While that logic holds specifically for a catcher and BR getting tangled, it is not true for ANY OTHER fielder / runner interaction. The FIELDER has right of way in fielding a batted ball. If PU feels that F2 was the fielder that should be protected in fielding this batted ball (as opposed to F1 or F5, for example), then F2 is afforded protection from a runner, including one charging from third. This sounds like interference to me.

[UmpJM]

TwoBits,

I believe that in your original sitch there is NOT interference, but NOT for the reasons suggested by Tim and LMan. Rather it is because, according to your description (if I'm reading it correctly),

...the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder...

.

By rule, this exempts the R3 from liability for (unintentional) interference with a protected fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball.

If he is NOT in contact with a base at the time he "failed to avoid" a protected fielder, he is properly called out, the ball is dead, the batter is awarded 1B, and any other runners return to their TOP base unless forced by the BR's award.

The protection afforded a BR on a tangle/untangle with the catcher while leaving the box is exclusive to the BR, and does not apply by rule or principle to any other runner. What the R3 should have been doing (again, were he not in contact with the base) is "avoiding the fielder".

So, except for the fact that the R3 was in contact with the base at the time of contact, I agree with mcrowder.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

While that logic holds specifically for a catcher and BR getting tangled, it is not true for ANY OTHER fielder / runner interaction. The FIELDER has right of way in fielding a batted ball. If PU feels that F2 was the fielder that should be protected in fielding this batted ball (as opposed to F1 or F5, for example), then F2 is afforded protection from a runner, including one charging from third. This sounds like interference to me.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

TwoBits,

I believe that in your original sitch there is NOT interference, but NOT for the reasons suggested by Tim and LMan. Rather it is because, according to your description (if I'm reading it correctly),

.

By rule, this exempts the R3 from liability for (unintentional) interference with a protected fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball.

If he is NOT in contact with a base at the time he "failed to avoid" a protected fielder, he is properly called out, the ball is dead, the batter is awarded 1B, and any other runners return to their TOP base unless forced by the BR's award.

The protection afforded a BR on a tangle/untangle with the catcher while leaving the box is exclusive to the BR, and does not apply by rule or principle to any other runner. What the R3 should have been doing (again, were he not in contact with the base) is "avoiding the fielder".

So, except for the fact that the R3 was in contact with the base at the time of contact, I agree with mcrowder.

JM

Please cite the rule reference you quoted, because I have never seen these words in print, and cannot find it in the rule book anywhere.

[UmpJM]

S.D. Steve,

My pleasure.

7.08
Any runner is out when_ ....(b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpire's judgment, such hindrance, whether it occurs on fair or foul territory, is intentional. ...

JM

[mcrowder]

Um.... you can't "occupy" home plate.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Thank you, I was looking in the wrong place, under interference instead of any runner out.

I think it would be hard to give the runner "legally occupied base" status given the wording of the original play, as well as the fact that home plate is never "occupied," but is merely touched.

He said the runner collided with the catcher just as he touched home plate. It would certainly seem that he made contact prior to the touch, but you would HTBT to know for sure. Maybe we can get more information from Two Bits.

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Um.... you can't "occupy" home plate.

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it.

There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call.

If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play.

But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate.

I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Thank you, I was looking in the wrong place, under interference instead of any runner out.

I think it would be hard to give the runner "legally occupied base" status given the wording of the original play, as well as the fact that home plate is never "occupied," but is merely touched.

He said the runner collided with the catcher just as he touched home plate. It would certainly seem that he made contact prior to the touch, but you would HTBT to know for sure. Maybe we can get more information from Two Bits.

R3 and catcher tied getting to the plate

Okay, seriously, R3 beat the catcher to the plate and contact between R3 and catcher occured on the plate.

[UmpJM]

mcrowder & S.D. Steve,

While I certainly get your point that "occupying home plate" is kind of a strange concept, I believe that, by rule, the R3 in TwoBits' original sitch fulfills the requirements from exemption from unintentional interference stated in the highlighted section of 7.08(b) I quoted above.

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

I believe that TwoBits' description was intended to convey the point that the R3 was touching home at the time the contact with F2 occurred. Otherwise, he wouldn't have posed the "variation" at the very end of his initial post.

JM

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by nickrego

Why not ?

The moment you touch the base, you are occupying it. There is no rule that says how soon you have to vacate the base. There was no impending play from another runner, so he could stay put until he is sure of the umpire's call. If there was an impending play, then the runner would have to vacate the area of the next play. But it is an interesting concept...The occupation of Home Plate. I don't recall that ever being discussed here.

The rule you mention applies to a runner who has achieved (or stayed on) a base and needs the protection of that base in order to prevent being tagged out. This is why a runner OCCUPIES the base - he can't leave without putting himself in jeopardy. None of this is true about home plate.

The runner in this sitch TOUCHED home plate, but doesn't occupy home plate. If you could occupy home plate, we'd have sitches here described as: 1 out, 1-1 count, R1 on Home, R2 on 2nd. Home plate is not a safe haven like a base is (in most cases). Similarly, if you find 2 runners on a base, one can be tagged out, as only 1 can OCCUPY that base legally. But two runners on the plate is nothing.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

I believe that the letter, spirit, & intent of the rule is to exempt a runner who is "in contact" with a base (any base) as long as he is "legally" in contact with that base. Per 7.01, the R3 meets the requirement.

No, the letter, spirit, and intent of the rule is not to force a runner from vacating the only safe space he has in order to keep from interfering with a fielder. Home plate is not a "safe space" in the way that bases are. What would the purpose of a rule saying a runner could stand on home plate and not be guilty of interference be? There's no reason for him to stay there like there is at other bases (i.e. protection from the chance of being put out).