Obstruction question.

[Illini_Ref]

I know that this has probably been discussed many times here, but I have been away from the board for awhile, so indulge me please.

I need two responses, one for FED and one for Babe Ruth.

Tag play at the plate. The catcher sets up just on the third base side of the plate. The throw is close enough to him that the runner, who does not slide and makes to attempt to avoid the catcher, hits the catcher and the catcher does not catch the ball. Runner steps on the plate.

Safe and ejected? Out and ejected? No ejection? No-call?

What if the runner makes an attempt to avoid, but still makes contact enough that the catcher cannot make a catch?

I'm saying in FED that if the contact is NOT malicious then the runner is safe on an obstruction call, due to the new language making it mandatory that he has the ball to block access. I believe Babe Ruth still has the "in the act of making a play" language in their set. If that is true then wouldn't the runner be out on the contact and ejected if it is deemed malicious?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I'm saying in FED that if the contact is NOT malicious then the runner is safe on an obstruction call, due to the new language making it mandatory that he has the ball to block access. I believe Babe Ruth still has the "in the act of making a play" language in their set. If that is true then wouldn't the runner be out on the contact and ejected if it is deemed malicious?

FED: Correct.

BR: Don't know, but under many OBR codes, it's "nothing" -- the runner isn't required to "attempt to avoid" unless the fielder has the ball. So, if the contact isn't malicious, it's just a train wreck.

[mbyron]

FED: if he does not slide and he makes contact with the catcher, then you have some decisions to make:

MC or not? You've stated that this was not MC, but I'm likely to rule that any contact significant enough to prevent F2 from catching a good throw IS MC. Penalty: out and ejected, MC supersedes obstruction.

If no MC, then we go to the next question:
Did the contact alter the play? If so, the runner is out (8-4-2b: "A runner is out when he...does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play"). Notice that the language of this rule requires that the runner AVOID the fielder, not just TRY to avoid. Penalty: out, no EJ.

If the runner is not out, then we go to the next question:
OBS or not? If the runner can step on the plate, then he obviously has access to it. No OBS as you describe the play.

Given what you describe, I've probably got MC on this play. At the very least, the runner is out under the slide provision (8-4-2b) quoted above. No way this is OBS.

Someone else will have to give you a Babe Ruth ruling.

[Illini_Ref]

Assuming the contact is not malicious, I still think that under FED rules I have obstruction. I'm thinking that the runner gained access to the plate only because he knocked the catcher down. I don't like the FED rule that says the fielder has to possess the ball, but it is there. No ball and blocking access tells me that the runner is safe unless there is MC.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

FED: if he does not slide and he makes contact with the catcher, then you have some decisions to make:

MC or not? You've stated that this was not MC, but I'm likely to rule that any contact significant enough to prevent F2 from catching a good throw IS MC. Penalty: out and ejected, MC supersedes obstruction.

Why would you rule that way? If the runner attemped to avoid the catcher, how could it possibly be malicious contact?

If no MC, then we go to the next question:
Did the contact alter the play? If so, the runner is out (8-4-2b: "A runner is out when he...does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play"). Notice that the language of this rule requires that the runner AVOID the fielder, not just TRY to avoid. Penalty: out, no EJ.

Again, if I have a runner that attempts to avoid contact then, I do not have a runner that caused illegal contact.

If the runner is not out, then we go to the next question:
OBS or not? If the runner can step on the plate, then he obviously has access to it. No OBS as you describe the play.

Given what you describe, I've probably got MC on this play. At the very least, the runner is out under the slide provision (8-4-2b) quoted above. No way this is OBS.

Someone else will have to give you a Babe Ruth ruling.

From what I understand, the wording here indicates that the runner is not allowed to illegally slide. Certainly, you are not trying to institute the mythical slide rule, are you?

So, I have a runner trying avoid contact-he is fine. The OBS call is hard to say with seeing it. But, you can certainly have OBS without the fielder covering every inch of the base with body. If the runner does not make it to the base because of the contact with a catcher without the ball, then I would rule OBS.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Assuming the contact is not malicious, I still think that under FED rules I have obstruction. I'm thinking that the runner gained access to the plate only because he knocked the catcher down. I don't like the FED rule that says the fielder has to possess the ball, but it is there. No ball and blocking access tells me that the runner is safe unless there is MC.

I believe the rule is more about safety, and it gives the umpire a clearer definition of obstruction to go by. No ball, you don't belong there.

Previously there were a lot of train wrecks that were nothing more than that but, everyone saw it differently and you were dammed if you called it and dammed if you didn't. At least now there is more of an obvious indicator avaiable to the official, that can also be observed by others too. There was that fine line between where was the ball, did the runner try and avoid contact, was the contact malicious, was it just two people meeting at the same spot, at the same time.

Now , does that mean the public and coaches will understand any of this any better. Heck no. You will still get, "he has a right to go through the catcher because he was there". Go figure

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Why would you rule that way? If the runner attempted to avoid the catcher, how could it possibly be malicious contact?

Attempting to avoid contact is not the requirement. Sliding OR avoiding contact is the requirement, and according to the OP the runner failed to meet it. That runner initiated contact and thus illegally altered the play.

But even if you regard attempting to avoid contact as the requirement, the runner did not even do that in the OP. "...the runner, who does not slide and makes to [i.e. no] attempt to avoid the catcher, hits the catcher and the catcher does not catch the ball." Assuming that's a typo there, this sure sounds like MC to me.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Again, if I have a runner that attempts to avoid contact then, I do not have a runner that caused illegal contact.

From what I understand, the wording here indicates that the runner is not allowed to illegally slide. Certainly, you are not trying to institute the mythical slide rule, are you?

The FED rule requires the runner to slide or avoid contact. It does not say slide or try to avoid contact. You seem to be misreading it.

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

So, I have a runner trying avoid contact-he is fine. The OBS call is hard to say with seeing it. But, you can certainly have OBS without the fielder covering every inch of the base with body. If the runner does not make it to the base because of the contact with a catcher without the ball, then I would rule OBS.

A fielder blocking a base is liable to be called for OBS. That is not a license for the runner to barrel into him or otherwise violate the FED sliding rules. That sounds like what happened here, which is why I'm leaning toward MC. All he had to do was slide legally: any contact then is legal, and if F2 is blocking the base without the ball he's guilty of OBS.

In general, the burden is on the runner to follow the sliding and MC rules first, since the fielder is in the more vulnerable position. If he does that, then I'll look at OBS. In the OP it seems that F2 was just standing there waiting for the throw and the runner initiated contact. It doesn't sound to me as if this runner followed the sliding or MC rules, so I'm not going to worry about OBS.

The play could be a "train wreck" if the throw led F2 into the runner's path, but the OP doesn't say that. In that case, it's HTBT, but I would not expect the runner to avoid contact, since he didn't initiate it.

[Tim C]

In Oregon we teach there are only two requirements for a collusion to be deemed MC:

1) If the runner is trying (intent) to dislodge the ball and,

2) Is the runner trying (intent) to displace (injure) the fielder.

Anything else is considered "part of the game."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Why would you rule that way? If the runner attemped to avoid the catcher, how could it possibly be malicious contact?



Again, if I have a runner that attempts to avoid contact then, I do not have a runner that caused illegal contact.




So, I have a runner trying avoid contact-he is fine.

Joe, in the OP there was a typo. He said "the runner, who does not slide and makes to attempt to avoid the catcher." He meant to say "the runner, who does not slide and makes no attempt to avoid the catcher."

The runner made no attempt to avoid the catcher.

Does this help at all?

Emily Lutella would believe that it does.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Joe, in the OP there was a typo. He said "the runner, who does not slide and makes to attempt to avoid the catcher." He meant to say "the runner, who does not slide and makes no attempt to avoid the catcher."

The runner made no attempt to avoid the catcher.

Does this help at all?

Emily Lutella would believe that it does.

So, THIS is what we think happened, then?

1) Catcher is in the Baseline w/o the ball
2) Runner did not try to avoid contact but was not malicious

THEN: Runner is out for INT because there was no violins on the part of the runner.

[jicecone]

Now you be a talking!!!!!

Loved that character.

Oh, and you can still only get one out too,

Just kidding, of course.