Collision at Home Plate

[jicecone]

A 1 sec collision?

Catcher on knees and moves into runner, not a smart move son.

[MrUmpire]

After watching it by stopping and starting the action throughout the play, it appears the runner is well to the right of the foul line with a clear path to the plate and the catcher is set up to the left of the foul line. The catcher leans in at the last moment and the contact is with the glove, arm and shoulder of the catcher.

No MC, no reason to eject.

edited to correct an error brought on by a huge brain freeze or stroke or severe deficiency of one mineral or another.

[rbmartin]

My call? Out. Play on!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I score the run.

I have him out on the tag.

[DG]

Not MC in my view.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I have him out on the tag.

You are absolutely correct. A major brain freeze here.

I was focused so intently on whether or not there was MC, I just ignored the tag. My regrets....

[mbyron]

I'm with the growing consensus: runner is out on the tag. No MC, as he was running wide, and F2 moved into his path to tag him.

[GoodwillRef]

The catcher moved into the runner, the catcher was not there, with the ball, waiting to tag the runner. This is nothing more than an out.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You are absolutely correct. A major brain freeze here.

I was focused so intently on whether or not there was MC, I just ignored the tag. My regrets....

No worries, I figured as much. We agree on the major point, no MC.

[jdmara]

I have a dissenting opinion on this play. Are you calling this a legal slide by the offensive player? If appears he makes shoulder to chest/shoulder contact with the catcher! In my opinion this is not a legal slide and, therefore, I have MC.

-Josh

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I have a dissenting opinion on this play. Are you calling this a legal slide by the offensive player? If appears he makes shoulder to chest/shoulder contact with the catcher! In my opinion this is not a legal slide and, therefore, I have MC.

-Josh

Josh,

What do you think is illegal about the slide?

JM

[MD Longhorn]

jd - show us the rule that requires this runner to legally slide and how that applies to this particular situation.

Agree with the masses. For there to be MC, there must be something M. I'm not sure runner could have done anything else with F2 moving into his path.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I have a dissenting opinion on this play. Are you calling this a legal slide by the offensive player? If appears he makes shoulder to chest/shoulder contact with the catcher! In my opinion this is not a legal slide and, therefore, I have MC.

-Josh

Josh,

What do you think is illegal about the slide?

An illegal slide is not, per se, malicious contact.

JM

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I have a dissenting opinion on this play. Are you calling this a legal slide by the offensive player? If appears he makes shoulder to chest/shoulder contact with the catcher! In my opinion this is not a legal slide and, therefore, I have MC.

-Josh

Even if it's not a legal slide (and I haven't seen the play), that does NOT mean it's malicious contact. Those are two separate items and you can have either without the other (although I concede a legal slide with MC would be an unusual occurrence).