Avoiding the Catcher: FED

[Spence]

My understanding in FED is that the runner cannot truck the catcher. He has to either slide or go around the catcher.

Runner rounding third heading for home. Throw is up the 3rd base line. F2 goes after the throw and there is a collision between the runner and F2.

What are you looking for in order to determine if this violates the "don't hit the catcher" rule? The runner clearly sees the catcher coming up the line. Is that enough? Does the distance away from home plate come into play?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Spence

My understanding in FED is that the runner cannot truck the catcher. He has to either slide or go around the catcher.

Runner rounding third heading for home. Throw is up the 3rd base line. F2 goes after the throw and there is a collision between the runner and F2.

What are you looking for in order to determine if this violates the "don't hit the catcher" rule? The runner clearly sees the catcher coming up the line. Is that enough? Does the distance away from home plate come into play?

The runner cannot maliciosly contact the catcher, but the catcher cannot impede the runner's progress without the ball. The onus is on the runner to avoid malicious contact, but the catcher must avoid obstruction. There can be contact between the catcher and the runner without constituting malicious contact.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

MTD, Jr., is playing in an 18 & over (his team's coach is a 37 year old player coach, so this could be interesting for the old guys in the league) league this summer; his primary position is first base followed by catcher.

The league is being played using NFHS rules. BUT (wait for it), the leagues Rule 9 states: "Catchers beware!! Sliding and contact at home plate is allowed!"

The league is based just across the state line in that state up North (Ohio State fans will know the name of the state), so I am assuming that the umpires will be MichiganHSAA registered baseball umpires. The league commissioner knows that both MTD, Jr., and I are OhioHSAA registered baseball umpires. I have not had a chat with the league commisstioner about Rule 9, but I just think that it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

MTD, Sr.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The league is being played using NFHS rules. BUT (wait for it), the leagues Rule 9 states: "Catchers beware!! Sliding and contact at home plate is allowed!"

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye (or breaks a bone).

[dash_riprock]

Your Rule 9 is not inconsistent with FED.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Spence

What are you looking for in order to determine if this violates the "don't hit the catcher" rule? The runner clearly sees the catcher coming up the line. Is that enough? Does the distance away from home plate come into play?

I'm looking at whether the runner has time to avoid the catcher, wherever he is, in fielding the throw. Distance from the plate does not come into play.

When the runner has time to avoid a collision and does not, that's malicious contact. MC supersedes obstruction.

There are plays where the runner does not have time to avoid the catcher: contact in this case is incidental if F2 has the ball, OBS if not.

If the runner has to deviate much, I'll probably have a call: if F2 has the ball, he's out for being out of the baseline; if F2 does not have the ball, I've got OBS on F2.

[Keefj200]

There are many aspects of this play. It would seem the catcher has the clear advantage in this situation. He has no fear of being "Pete Rosed." I have a difficult time calling the runner out of the baseline if he attempting to avoid contact with the catcher at home plate. The runner has a few options - he can attempt to go inside or outside to avoid the catcher. The runner cannot go through the catcher. F-2 is also in a difficult situation - he has to be in position to make the catch and apply the tag. In his attempt to field the throw - he might be drawn into the path of the runner. It is a difficult judgment call at best. Earlier this year I had a throw by the first baseman draw the catcher up the third base line. The runner, not wishing to run through the catcher chose to slide into the catcher 8' in front of the plate. The offensive coach wanted obstruction on the catcher. My view is the catcher has the right to go up the line to field the throw - the runner, at this point, has more options than the catcher - I called the runner out. In my opinion, the runner had the opportunity to simply go to the outside of the catcher and easily tag home plate. There is no way, in this situation, that I was going to call the runner out for being out of the base line.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Spence

My understanding in FED is that the runner cannot truck the catcher. He has to either slide or go around the catcher.

Runner rounding third heading for home. Throw is up the 3rd base line. F2 goes after the throw and there is a collision between the runner and F2.

What are you looking for in order to determine if this violates the "don't hit the catcher" rule? The runner clearly sees the catcher coming up the line. Is that enough? Does the distance away from home plate come into play?

If the runner "cleary see the catcher coming up the line" and has time to attempt to avoid, it might also be interference. The runner is out, but is not ejected unless the interference is also malicious.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Spence

My understanding in FED is that the runner cannot truck the catcher. He has to either slide or go around the catcher.

Runner rounding third heading for home. Throw is up the 3rd base line. F2 goes after the throw and there is a collision between the runner and F2.

What are you looking for in order to determine if this violates the "don't hit the catcher" rule? The runner clearly sees the catcher coming up the line. Is that enough? Does the distance away from home plate come into play?

I think there is a big distinction between legal contact (aka "a train wreck") and malicious contact. Although baseball is not considered a contact sport, not all contact is illegal.

In OP, if R# is heading for home while the throw is up the 3B line you have to look for a few things, in my opinion:

1. Who initiated the contact?
2. Is the contact avoidable by the runner?
3. Did anyone maliciously contact the other player? (ie. Runner loaded up and led with their shoulder, or catcher laid down a hard tag directed towards the face or head...)

If (in the OP) F2 is being drawn into the running by the throw, the runner may not have the opportunity to avoid this contact because they don't know where F2 is heading. The contact is a train wreck (incidental), in my opinion (aka legal contact). Then is must be decided if there was malicious contact. There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could occur but that's briefly what I look at for contact between the runner and catcher at home. Now obstruction and interference is a whole different animal on this play.

-Josh

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Keefj200

I have a difficult time calling the runner out of the baseline if he attempting to avoid contact with the catcher at home plate.

Two possibilities:

1. Runner comes in wide to avoid the CATCHER but comes straight to the plate once F2 has the ball. Ruling: play on.

2. Runner deviates from his path to the plate to avoid the TAG. Ruling: if the catcher can't reach him, he's out for being out of the baseline.