It's almost like he was tripped.

Looking over the video several times, I can say for sure that the view from 1BX was definitly different than the view would have been from 3BX.

He shouldn't have been 1BLX, BU w/ R2 was working B on a batted ball that nearly hits R2.

Not a lot of great things there.

OP says partners.

So probably 3-man. B is correct for U1 in a 3-man with 1 out and R2+R3.

Not to mention that BU's position (whether right or wrong) has nothing to do with PU's positioning on a play at the plate.

Now, on a ball to the infield and then directly back to the plate, PU should (generally) step straight back from the point of the plate -- too many default to going to 1BX immediately. Where he ended up, though, was probably a better view of the tag attempt than from 3BX (ignoring the diving here).

It was a 3-man crew.

I'm amazed at those who say they would also ignore this.

Another photo sequence --- Scout.com: Umpire in Cass/NW Whitfield game didn't know the rule

So, Hoops Ref Junior, are you a hoops ref? If so, have you ever had to use your judgment to make a call. Did your judgment always match your partners, the coaches, players and fans?

No one here is going to dispute the rule. But if all I have to go by are those pictures, I'm not sure if I'm convinced that the runner dove over the catcher. It looks to me like maybe the runner was upended by the catcher. That is there was no intentional diving action on the runner's part. The catcher moved into him, took out his legs and the runner just happened to land the way he landed.

Maybe. I don't know. I would defer to the judgment of the officials who were actually there and actually observed the play.

I agree with this 100%.

A series of still photographs makes this extremely difficult to determine. But for me to call this definitively, I need to see some sort of verticality achieved. Pick a part of his body and look at successive photos. His head definitely never rises. Nor his shoulders. Torso remains flat for a time, then down. Waist, even, doesn't appear to go up from photo to photo. And by the feet/legs start rising, there's no question in my mind that he's already been contacted by the rising catcher.

I don't think this player jumped or dove over the catcher any more than he simply tried to stop his momentum (his legs DO stop for about 3 frames) and was falling forward when his legs were forced up by the catcher.

Not saying I would fault an umpire who DID call him out in this sequence - just saying the evidence we're being shown doesn't really prove anything in either direction.

+1

I didn't read where anybody agreed that the runner dove over the catcher, and that they would ignore the infraction. Those who disagree with you basically judged that something else caused the runner to appear to have dived, whether it was the catcher hitting the runner's legs with his shoulders or the runner's inability to stop his momentum.

Like others, I have a hard time discerning what exactly took place from low def videos and grainy stills that appear to be taken from 30 to 50 feet away through a net or chain link fence. Just looking at the latest photos you posted, it's impossible to tell in the second picture if the catcher's right shoulder contacts the runner's leg.

If you judge the runner was tripped (rather than dove), that's fine, but in any event, the runner was out.

+1

IMO I would rather have seen this kid avoid the catcher, due to an errant throw, by leaning over him, rather than what could have happened! You know, the start of a head first dive into the catcher due to the throw, major collision! Then what? Judgement on that play too.

I must admit, when I first saw the video, I had him out on the dive 100%
After watching it ten times I wasn't too sure. I don't think the intent of the rule was MEANT to be violated here, but we can't have these kids making highlight reals.

Based upon what? Are you suggesting his trip would still be a violation of 8-4-2d?