Collision at Home Plate
 

I'm not an umpire so I'm not clear on the requirements. Its my layman's understanding that the runner must try to avoid contact.

WYMT Sports Page

On the right hand side you will see a video section. Click on the "June 15th - 11" to see the collision at home.

What would you do with the runner?

I can only comment on rules for Canada (modified OBR) but I would have runner out and ejected.

A 1 sec collision?

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

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.

My call? Out. Play on!

I have him out on the tag. :)

Not MC in my view.

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....

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Josh,

What do you think is illegal about the slide?

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

JM

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).

I agree that an illegal slide is not necessary malicious contact, I do agree with that statement. It's not an automatic.

He is what I see on this play. Catcher who is on one knee receives the ball prior to the arrival of the runner at home plate. The runner initiates contact with a leading shoulder into the upper chest/shoulder/head region of the catcher. It must be noted that the catchers (left) knee is on the 3rd baseline.

In Iowa, it has been a huge emphasis over the years to cut out malicious contact and penalize it justly. The umpires have been instructed, as well as the coaches, that if there is an imminent out the runner has a few options and going through someone is not one of them.

Logical or not, this is how I look at this play. If the runner were to slide feet first, the slide would be illegal if the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position (2-32-2b). In the OP, the runner did "slide", I think we can all agree on that. IMO, the contact was clearly made above the line higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position. That makes me question the intent of the running and the legality of the slide. Seeing that the runner led with his shoulder I have malicious contact. I wouldn't think twice about it.

-Josh

I don't. Agree that is. He's clearly trying to dive around the catcher and the catcher moves into his path. Pause it (admittedly difficult on this interface)... you'll see that catcher is inside WITHOUT the ball when runner, on the outside initiates the diving part of the play. He's already on his way down when catcher catches the ball. Not sure how we could expect an airborne player who was diving into an unoccupied space to somehow change direction when the space becomes occupied.

It's easy to analyze after the fact when you can pause and rerun in slo-mo. This gets really close to becoming an announcer.

Just kidding. At least we know the rules...

My very first thought was $-!+ happens. It looked to me like the collision wasn't that bad and maybe the catcher was faking. It looked like the runner tried to avoid contact. After watching it multiple times, I can see the catcher lunging into it ever so slightly. My ruling---Play on. Runner is out on tag.

must agree with the masses, no MC, tag your out.

one question, is it legal in College to leap like that?

It's legal at every level to leap. You just can't leap over a fielder, unless he's lying on the ground.

'Over' means over, not nearby.

NCAA does not have the prohibition on leaping, hurdling, diving, etc. that FED has.

The catcher is out in front of the batters box area. The runner is attempting to get down at such a time that he can reasonably make the play. The contact is not malicious or flagrant. All I have is an out.

Just baseball in that video...no MC.

I don't see anything illegal about this head first "dive" to the plate. It's not a head first slide, that is different look entirely. But nothing illegal about it. Catcher moved into his path at the last moment.