Not applicable for this case . Fielder can't be there without the ball first. Runner still must make attempt to avoid contact though. Sounds more like incidental contact here however, HTBT.

From the OP: "The ball only beat him by a step or 2."

We had our 11U draft yesterday (yes, I was suckered into coaching my son's team) and this topic came up. A couple of the coaches are also IHSA officials who attended one of my clinics. When the league director emphasized the safe slide rule, one of them asked about the need to slide. The league director said that they will use the IHSA rule (Fed) and runners have to slide. I informed him that he had the rule wrong. We can encourage our runners to slide when played upon but they don't have to as long as they slide legally or avoid malicious contact. Grudgingly, he accepted the ruling after confirming it in my rule book. He had been under that impression for years.

Another coach asked about the very play we are describing. The catcher is waiting for an imminent throw and is standing in front of the target base. 2-22-3 seems to fit the bill here. Imminent throws don't seem relevant to Fed rules. For high school, the fielder must have the ball before blocking a base, right?

Yes.

From my position (behind the mound), I couldn't tell if F2 was blocking the plate. From the small amount of contact, I'm inclined to believe he was in position to make the play but that he wasn't blocking the plate - but I'm guessing.

Dash, you and I are on the same page. The penalty was equivalent to the outcome of the play - so nothing worth noting on the field. Had the ball come loose, PU would have called the runner out. jicecone is correct as well - incidental, HTBT (as are most contact situations) - would apply the penalty for OBS or not avoiding contact if the case presented itself.

I don't believe I've had the "they can't say balk" comment yet. That's a good one.

There are situations where contact is avoidable but not malicious. There are also situations where contact is unavoidable.

"Imminent throw" used to be in our vernacular, but no longer. Now our on-field words should include: "secure possession of the ball" and/or "allowed/denied the runner access to the base."

Here's a 2008 NFHS interp:

SITUATION 13: Without the ball in possession, the catcher sets up in the base path, but does allow access to part of home plate. As the ball and the runner converge at home simultaneously, the runner contacts the catcher. RULING: As long as the umpire judges that the catcher provided access to the plate for the runner, this is not obstruction. With the play in motion and the timing such that it is about to occur, a fielder may be in the base path without the ball, provided he allows the runner access to the base or home (2-22-3)

My question was rhetorical.

8-3-2 Situation C in the current Casebook tells the tale: A fielder CANNOT be in the basepath without the ball in his possession, nor can he be in the base path waiting for the ball to arrive without giving the runner some access to home plate.

Contact does not have to occur. I won't let a coach contend that only two sides of the plate were blocked therefore the runner still had access to the back sides.

I think that where this will be fun will involve steals at second or third. The fielder can anticipate the throw and put a foot or knee down to partially block the base (8-3-2 Casebook Situation L). You can bet that the better coaches are instructing their fielders to do that and immediately abandon their position on the tag so that we cannot see a partial or complete block. (Given that we are tracking the ball and watching for a tag.)

This should be fun.

So was my reply.

:)

Why is it that so many officials on this forum have the unending desire to be statesmen or comediennes and impending need to test coach's patience? :confused:

This was uncalled for, imo. :rolleyes:

God help him if after acquiring security of possession...he bobbles the damn thing. :p

"Why is it that so many officials on this forum have the unending desire to be" the know it all's, the English professor and the Smart arses all the time. Don't recall your name as being the "Umpire of the Year."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

^^^^^^^
Look at those rolleyes. :D You got me, you know it.

I was International Umpire of the Year. ;)

Got that right. Which is all the better reason to not be cutesy, toss one liners or lecture them on constitutional rights; most of the time, all that does is make them look and feel stupid - it makes the official look like a jester - which is the last thing a rules uneducated coach wants, regardless of whether he is or not an idiot. :p

Calmly listen, correct with short, distinct rules or related information, listen a little more, answer appropriately, end the discussion while moving off. Professional, precise, everybody should be satisfied. ;)

[QUOTE=Simply The Best;739623]^^^^^^^
Look at those rolleyes. :D You got me, you know it.

I was International Umpire of the Year. ;)[/QUOTE

Well Golly Gee Whiz!!!! Did you get a ribbon for that?

You DO realize that every time you feed a troll an angel loses his wings and crashes and dies?