Is this questionable?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

You envision the play differently than I do. The reason I asked for the cite from J/R is that I visualize the play as one which would get no call in a MLB game. And I think J/R supports that with the phrase: "......disregards his try to get to a base safely......". I think the runner was clearly trying to reach home plate.

It is a stretch to call this play a "tag attempt". A tag attempt requires the fielder to have the ball in his possession. In the OP, the ball arrives as R2 knocks down the catcher. Think of ARod slapping at the fielder on his way to first-- that's interference with a tag attempt.

I was mostly basing my opinion on the fact that the play occurred "six feet up the 3rd base line." I felt that the runner should have used other means to get by the catcher other than using flying elbows and a body block. One of the criteria J/R used was "assault the fielder." Sounded like a pretty good mugging to me!

[johnnyg08]

do we take into consideration that the runner had to alter his path? or do we consider that he could've altered his path and still scored just as quickly w/o having to go through F2?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I was mostly basing my opinion on the fact that the play occurred "six feet up the 3rd base line."

I will point out that "six feet up the 3rd base line" is just outside (about 6")the edge of the batter's box, if measured from the spot where the foul line meets the plate. That's only about 1 stride (maybe just over) for a runner.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the way you seem to be envisioning the play. I'm only pointing out that the OP hasn't been back to clarify.

[PeteBooth]

As Bob says we need further clarification which you still did not provide.

First things first Fielders may position themselves anywhere they like.

F2 is 6 ft up the 3rd base line awaiting throw from F7 for a apparent play at plate. Runner comes down the line

Based soley on this description we do not know if in fact F2 obstructed the runner.

1. Did F2 even though 6 ft. up the line provide any access to the base? or was the base COMPLETELY blocked?

2. Was the runner obstructed? meaning you did not mention anything about the runner other than he came in with elbows high and crashed F2. Did the runner have to slow down, alter his path etc.

IMO, all we know based upon your description of the play is that the runner maliciously (using your terminology elbows high, knocks down F2) contacted F2.

As Bob said under PURE OBR I would have nothing as we see this type of play many a time at home plate. Pete Rose, Erstand, etc. come to mind.

Under most amateur rule codes this would be MC meaning the player will get Ej'd. In FED / NCAA (assuming no OBS on the part of F2) we would also get the out. As Bob said there is no MC rule in NCAA but a no collision rule which is similar but not the same as FED's.

In Summary: Without providing further info it is very difficult to answer

Pete Booth

[DG]

No further clarification needed for me. Flying elbows, with no intent to reach the plate will get you tossed. Except in the pros who are not concerned with catcher welfare.

I raised (reared) two catchers so call me biased. I can live with it.