Runner dives over catcher on tag play

[RPatrino]

That's the beauty and challenge of officiating. We don't have the luxury of replaying a video clip 100 times and analyzing it from every angle. We see the play, and make the best call based on our judgement.

Unfortunately, we can't use intent to violate a rule as a factor in making our calls. Its pretty simple, was there a violation or not?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

No, I'm suggesting that if the runner was tripped, he was tagged. If he wasn't tripped, he dove over the fielder. Either way, he's out.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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

Manny, if he was tripped, then the catcher tagged him , didn't he?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash riprock

No, I'm suggesting that if the runner was tripped, he was tagged. If he wasn't tripped, he dove over the fielder. Either way, he's out.

Originally Posted by jicecone

Manny, if he was tripped, then the catcher tagged him , didn't he?

Um ... no. Unless you're suggesting that a fielder in possession of the ball in their glove can contact a runner with their head or shoulders and get an out...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

That's the beauty and challenge of officiating. We don't have the luxury of replaying a video clip 100 times and analyzing it from every angle. We see the play, and make the best call based on our judgement.

Unfortunately, we can't use intent to violate a rule as a factor in making our calls. Its pretty simple, was there a violation or not?

I could probably tell ... or at least be able to determine whether I have enough evidence or not ... if I was the umpire on the spot. Unfortunately, we've been given 6 photographs - not nearly enough to decide.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

No, I'm suggesting that if the runner was tripped, he was tagged. If he wasn't tripped, he dove over the fielder. Either way, he's out.

Oh; I didn't realize you were suggesting he tripped on the catcher's mitt.

I didn't see any contact between the runner's foot and the mitt. And given that the catcher went back over to tag the runner after the dive/trip/whatever, he probably felt he missed on the first tag attempt.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Um ... no. Unless you're suggesting that a fielder in possession of the ball in their glove can contact a runner with their head or shoulders and get an out...

Watch the video and freeze it right when 0:09 changes to 0:10. The runner is clearly airborne before there is any contact with F2's head/shoulders. When you get tripped, you fall forward and down. This runner launched himself. With the benefit of freeze-frame video, there is no doubt he dove over the fielder.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I could probably tell ... or at least be able to determine whether I have enough evidence or not ... if I was the umpire on the spot. Unfortunately, we've been given 6 photographs - not nearly enough to decide.

I agree, had I been there I would have made a decision. Given the 'aid' of multiple views I would become much more undecided.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Watch the video and freeze it right when 0:09 changes to 0:10. The runner is clearly airborne before there is any contact with F2's head/shoulders. When you get tripped, you fall forward and down. This runner launched himself. With the benefit of freeze-frame video, there is no doubt he dove over the fielder.

A) That video sucks. B) I froze it at numerous points, and did not see the glove ever hit the player. C) At no point do I see the foot off the ground before the catcher's head / shoulders hit the runner.

I'm not saying this CANNOT be a dive - I'm just saying this is definitely not enough proof to override the umpire on the spot. Not even close.

[CT1]

Ya know, sometimes when they're gonna be out, they're just plain out. Whether it was by a tag on the foot, or the diving penalty, I'd have an out on this play.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by CT1

Ya know, sometimes when they're gonna be out, they're just plain out. Whether it was by a tag on the foot, or the diving penalty, I'd have an out on this play.

Right. It's impossible for him to be safe on this play.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Right. It's impossible for him to be safe on this play.

And yet, he was.

[RPatrino]

Coach: How could you call him out on that play?
Me: Because he WAS!

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And yet, he was.

You're absolutely right. I'll amend my post. It's impossible for him to be safe on this play unless the PU kicks the shit out of it.

[David B]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

You're absolutely right. I'll amend my post. It's impossible for him to be safe on this play unless the PU kicks the shit out of it.

well put, PU didn't know the rule and from watching the ensuing conversation with the coach, the coach didn't know the rule either. (no surprise there)

thanks
David