Inattentive Runner - Collision

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Sven K

and as the fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him.

First things first.

Others are quoting OBR rule references BUT most leagues that are OBR based, ie: Legion, USSSA, Babe Ruth / Ripken/ etc. have an MC or a Collission rule.

You say "runner plows" Generally speaking when a runner "plows" into another IS a form of MC. Yes there can be collissions that are not malicious but as mentioned in general terms when someone "plows into" another is an intent to injure. Obviously we would HTBT to see EXACTLY what transpired but I am going STRICTLY by your wording.

The call is

1. TIME
2. That's MC
3. R2 is out and I am also taking the out at first as well
4. R2 is ejecetd

Pete Booth

[rbmartin]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682512]

The call is

1. TIME
2. That's MC
3. R2 is out and I am also taking the out at first as well
4. R2 is ejecetd

The OP said the runner was "oblivious of the play developing in front of him".
How can you have MC? You could have HUYAC (head up your #$@ contact).

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

The OP said the runner was "oblivious of the play developing in front of him".
How can you have MC? You could have HUYAC (head up your #$@ contact).

Every time someone mentions contact Pete starts a MC lecture.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

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

[MrUmpire]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]

... dislodge the ball from said player which is a form of MC.

Pete Booth

Not under all rule codes.

[Rich Ives]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;682523]

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

You obviously haven't spent nearly enough time in 12U rec ball. Oblivion is a standard state of mind at that level.

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?

[MD Longhorn]

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

[PeteBooth]

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

[MD Longhorn]

The runner is on his way to third (oblivious of the play developing in front of him) and as the fielder is rising up to make the tag the runner plows into him

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.