Play at the plate

[Forest Ump]

FED:

F2 is on the plate about to receive the ball. Runner coming in from 3rd crashes into the F2. No slide and no attempt to avoid. The runner only uses his hands to protect his chest. No forearm up. Runner did touch the plate as the catcher is receiving the ball and due to the crash the catcher does not make the catch.

Fed rule say he must legally slide or legally avoid. 8-4-2-b & c

I would call the runner out for not trying to avoid. I don't think this is an ejection for malicious contact.

Sound right? If not, please explain.

Same situation but now F2 is three feet up the line.

I have the same call or would you consider this now obstruction?

[jicecone]

Well lets see here. Are we going to get into a technical discussion about the catchers position at or on the plate. Fed defines one form of obstruction NFHS2.22.3 as a "fielder without possession of the ball, denying access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve." did that happen?

We also have the condition of two people meeting at the same place, meaning , sometimes crap happens. If you didn't feel as though the contact was malicious and that the runner could have avoided contact AT the plate and did not, then it's your call. We were not there. Just remember the rules do not say that contact is totally illegal in a game were two people are trying to get to the same place at the same time. Had to be there.

As far as being 3 feet up the line. If you feel as though F2 denied access to the plate without possession of the ball, then we have obstruction.

Sorry but, the necessary discretion on these calls is not always a black and white interprtation of the rules. Here is definetly where experience helps.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Well lets see here. Are we going to get into a technical discussion about the catchers position at or on the plate. Fed defines one form of obstruction NFHS2.22.3 as a "fielder without possession of the ball, denying access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve." did that happen?

We also have the condition of two people meeting at the same place, meaning , sometimes crap happens. If you didn't feel as though the contact was malicious and that the runner could have avoided contact AT the plate and did not, then it's your call. We were not there. Just remember the rules do not say that contact is totally illegal in a game were two people are trying to get to the same place at the same time. Had to be there.

As far as being 3 feet up the line. If you feel as though F2 denied access to the plate without possession of the ball, then we have obstruction.

Sorry but, the necessary discretion on these calls is not always a black and white interprtation of the rules. Here is definetly where experience helps.

I was an observer at this game, but I have seen this play twice this year (as an observer, sit. A and B). As I said, the runner came in and did not try to avoid. I believe any movement can be justified as trying to avoid. Absent that movement, I've got an out. I actually have never called an out for not trying to avoid and was hoping to get some feedback on this call. Thanks.

[etn_ump]

Situation 1: I got nothing.

Situation 2: I got obstruction.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

FED:

F2 is on the plate about to receive the ball. Runner coming in from 3rd crashes into the F2. No slide and no attempt to avoid. The runner only uses his hands to protect his chest. No forearm up. Runner did touch the plate as the catcher is receiving the ball and due to the crash the catcher does not make the catch.

It's HTBT, of course, but yes, in FED, you can get an out without the EJ for MC.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's HTBT, of course, but yes, in FED, you can get an out without the EJ for MC.

Please explain. Where is the out here?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DG

Please explain. Where is the out here?

If the runner collides with F2 as he makes the catch, but the contact is not so severe as to warrant MC, then you can call the out without the EJ, as Bob said.

Originally Posted by rule book 8-4-2

Any runner is out when he:
c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him;
PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.

The rule is there, but it's tough to envision a scenario where I'd call an out without MC + EJ. I'm envisioning 3 primary cases:

(a) F2 set up to receive throw, runner hits him: RULING - whether or not F2 has the ball, this sounds like MC, and I'd have to see to believe otherwise.

(b) Throw to F2 draws him into runner's path, runner tries to avoid, collision: RULING - by 8-4-2(c) that's a legal play by the runner, who was attempting to avoid.

(c) Throw to F2 draws him into runner's path too late for runner to avoid: RULING - I can't see punishing the offense for mistakes by the defense (off-line throw).

Given the restriction of 8-4-2(c) that the runner must avoid contact when the fielder is in the immediate act of playing on him, it's hard to see the application of this rule.

[jicecone]

And that was my point about the position of F2. Two people meeting at the same location is most likely going to involve contact, almost unavoidable, yet not necessarily result in a penalty or rule infraction.

Now, in the baseline if the runner has a chance to avoid contact and does not, I have an out and have actually made that call. You tend to get this when a catcher is standing in the baseline watching the action and the runner doesn't want to go around, just because.

To me, an umpires ability to discern that fine line between obstruction, contact (malaicious or avoidable) and nothing at all, defines his true understanding of the rules.

[dash_riprock]

I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to envision a situation where a runner is called out pursuant to 8-4-2-(c), and interference is NOT called (ball stays live).