Definition of TRAINWRECK

[UmpTTS43]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4lV1Hh...eature=related

I appologize if it has been posted prior.

Classic "trainwreck" in my book after viewing this many times. I'm sure others will debate.

[waltjp]

Did the catcher have the ball? It appears that the ball and runner arrived at the same time. The ball bounced off something - either the runner or the catcher's glove.

Did the runner slide? Yes.

I don't see how this play can be judged malicious intent.

Bad call.

[David B]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4lV1Hh...eature=related

I appologize if it has been posted prior.

Classic "trainwreck" in my book after viewing this many times. I'm sure others will debate.

I had not seen that play, but I'd agree with your interp. The runner had no where to go since F2 moved into his path without the ball.

But, the new FED rules would call it obstruction, under the old rules, it would be just a trainwreck.

If not playing FED, looks like hard nose baseball. PU ejected the runner so he must have done something unusual because it looks like he starts to slide and slides into F2. But hard to tell from this angle.

Thanks
David

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by David B

I had not seen that play, but I'd agree with your interp. The runner had no where to go since F2 moved into his path without the ball.

But, the new FED rules would call it obstruction, under the old rules, it would be just a trainwreck.

If not playing FED, looks like hard nose baseball. PU ejected the runner so he must have done something unusual because it looks like he starts to slide and slides into F2. But hard to tell from this angle.

Thanks
David

Agreed. I see obstruction. Hey, did the run score?

[socalblue1]

Hard to tell from the video but it looks like the runner may have used his hands to shove F2? Slide was more a duck & roll, possibly due to the bad throw.

I have a train wreck and run scored, no ejection. IMO bad call (Unless runner did something we can't see from the angle in the video).

[UmpJM]

ODJ & David B.,

Even with the "new and improved" language in the FED Obstruction rule, from what I can see in the videotape, this still looks like nothing but a "train wreck" - not obstruction.

I am referring of course to the language from the POE section of the 2008 FED rule book (near the top of p.68) that says:

...Plays where the ball, fielder and runner all converge at the same point - the "train wreck" - are a part of the game. ...

Regardless, unless the umpire's angle allowed him to see something that is not evident from the videotape, I don't see anything warranting an ejection.

JM

[chuckfan1]

Not the best view. But, from what we can see, does look like the classic "train wreck".
I do not have OBS here. F2 set up in front of plate waiting. He moves into baseline as the ball comes in. Throw is high. I see F2 moving to glove the throw. Play appear imminent.

Nothing here.

[canadaump6]

Runner slid for home and the catcher was in his way. Bad call.

I have had a couple plays at home plate where the runner should have slid, but doesn't and ends up colliding with the catcher. While I didn't see malicious intent on either of the plays, my partner claimed a shoulder drop on one and the catcher claimed a shoulder drop on the other. As umpires should we be giving the benefit of the doubt to the catcher on these types of play?

[johnnyg08]

it certainly isn't OBS...and I'm not calling MC there either...unless there's something that the video didn't catch...and who's the idiot fan in the background?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

it certainly isn't OBS...and I'm not calling MC there either...unless there's something that the video didn't catch...and who's the idiot fan in the background?

"idiot fan"?

Isn't that being redundant?

[JRutledge]

I see little wrong with the play. The runner slide and seemed to go directly into the bag. That is the runner's right to do so.

Peace