Every time someone mentions contact Pete starts a MC lecture.

[QUOTE]How can the runner be "oblivious of the play RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM" UNLESS we are talking about TEE ball or "rug-rat" players which is a "horse of a different color"?

As an official I see F5 and then I see R2 "plowing into him" How do I know or interpret this action as "being oblivious"? Generally speaking when a runner "plows into" a fielder the purpose is to dislodge the ball from said player which is a form of MC.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]Not under all rule codes.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]You obviously haven't spent nearly enough time in 12U rec ball. Oblivion is a standard state of mind at that level. :D

To go on, you assume way too much in terms of intent. There don't seem to be any accidents in your world, and it always sems to be the runner's fault.

How about this grown-up play:

Runner heading home. He looks back over his shoulder to see if the ball is coming (not supposed to but they do anyhow). Catcher steps into the runner's path. Runner runs into him full tilt.

Who, if anyone, is at fault? Is it MC or just a train wreck?

Pete, I don't know how you can assume intent at all when it's pretty much specifically excluded by the original poster...

I am STRICTLY going by the poster's use of "plows into" and Generally speaking when someone uses the phrase "plows into" they are referring to a Pete Rose / Ray Fosse type of incident, otherwise use different terminology.

If you "plow me over" it means just that. You see me with the ball and now want to dislodge it from me. As mentioned at least in FED that is a form of MC.

Pete Booth

That's what OP said. "oblivious of the play in front of him", to me, sounds like a deep lack of awareness. I'm not sure we should take the "plows into him" to mean that the poster did not mean what he said in the rest of the sentence. Heck ... I "plowed into" my 7-year old daughter just this morning when I didn't see her coming and we walked into each other.

I think it's pretty clear from "oblivious" that there was no intent. (I would note to our new poster that it's imperative to check into one's post's responses so that questions like this can be cleared up!) I think it's rather probable that he merely used the phrase "plowed into" to mean that the collision was messy.

Thanks for the responses guys.

These are 7/8 graders on 80 foot bases with a 53 foot mound. I believe we play under OBR but we do force the obligation for non-collision on the runner.

The ball was not knocked loose. When I say oblivious I mean oblivious. This kid would have been doubled off by 80 feet if the ball were hit in the air. I do not think there was any malicious intent.

While one might say we are splitting hairs here more fine than the level of play deserves I'm the kind of coach who likes to know we got it right by the rules. I am a detail-oriented guy who likes baseball.

As you guys know, kids often bring about the application of some rather obscure rules. Each of these is a teachable moment. Hopefully they learn to appreciate and enjoy the subtlety and complexity of the game as I do.

When the oblivious kid was being attended to I gathered my fielders around to explain what had just happened, why the kid was out, and how in our league it is the runner's obligation to know what the heck is going on and avoid the collision. I told them that I wasn't sure about calling the DP but I didn't want to take it up with the crew right then.

Later on we had the bases loaded with one out when the opposing team wanted to change pitchers. I called the guys on base together and we went over the infield fly rule. They said they knew it but I could tell by the look in their eyes that they probably would know what to do if IFF was called. Another teachable moment.

And then I told them that the hands are part of the bat.

Just kidding! :d

Did your wife send you to time-out?

HEY, I'm still waiting for my consolation prize. is it a Bat with Hands attached to it? I've always wanted one.......

No they weren't. They might have reached the correct conclusion (and I'm not sure of that, either), but they used incorrect reasoning.

According to Sven, they reasoned that "it can't be assumed that the double play would have been completed and only the obtuse runner is called out." That seems to imply that the standard for calling a double play is whether a DP would have been completed without the INT. That's not correct in any code.

Semantics?

"It cannot be assumed . . " is true in OBR. Assumption has nothing to do with it. You must judge willful & deliberate intent to call a DP. Judging the oblivious runner as having intent would be a MAJOR stretch.

In FED you CAN assume a DP eould have happened and call it.

No. Assumptions play no role in umpiring this play.

The rest of your post is correct.

Agreed. The quote is something that scorers use, not umpires.