I really want to find a reason for not calling this runner safe.
My first thought was maybe the umpire thought the runner was avoiding a collision. However, there is no collision avoidance rule for FED. Also, the rule concerning diving over a player is very clear. You can not dive over a player for any reason. this is cleared up in the casebook. If a runner does, he is out.
So my next thought was, maybe the umpire didn't judge the runner's action as a 'dive'. The rule book says that jumping or hurdling is legal if the player is on the ground. So I think we can figure out that a 'dive' is a headfirst leap. Again, the case book says that diving is never legal.
So maybe the umpire judged that the dive was not 'over' the catcher. But watching the video once sets that aside. Then the pictures confirm it.
Finally, maybe the umpire believed that the catcher caused the dive by going into the runner's legs. If you've ever seen this, whether baseball or a running back on the goal line, then you've seen that where this catcher made contact would have caused the runner's upper body to tilt much more to the ground than the lower body. If the catcher caused the contact. This didn't happen.
So I'm left thinking that the umpire maybe had been working more games under MLB rules and forgot this FED rule. Or he didn't know it. Or he just froze under the situation.
This probably wouldn't be a large issue if all the other incidences, right or wrong, hadn't occurred. No matter what, this could be a good life lesson for the kids, as all experiences are. They now know that no one is perfect and when mistakes are made you have to push through..
Thus ends my never ending post.

My honest opinion ... it's most likely that the umpire didn't know the rule. It's just not certain.

However, if we go with the given that he DOES know the rule and applied it properly, it is very possible that your "maybe the umpire believed that the catcher caused the dive by going into the runner's legs" is what he saw. We must admit we only have one angle here, and a very grainy video. Even with just that, it's completely possible that the catcher DID hit the runner's upper legs. The runner's angle most definitely changes - the only issue is that we cannot tell whether that was by choice or because of contact.

None ? What about Fed 8-4-2(c).

I think the runner was doing what he was supposed to do (avoid the collision). With F2 moving into his sprinting path, I can't fault R3 for protecting himself and F2. 8-4-2(b2) is a good safety rule. If the defender has the runner dead to rights, intentionally hurdling, diving, jumping over that fielder is a dangerous choice. I don't think that was the choice R3 took, I think he choose to avoid contact/injury the best he could with a fielder moving into his path at the last second.

Though it is not an exact analogy for the play in the video, CB 8.2.1D gives an example of F2 moving, R3 hurdling and no 8-4-2(b2) out applying.

I'd probably would have had R3 out on the tag, except for F2 acting like he missed the tag...I hate it when they do that.

I ran hurdles in high school, and I never went over one in that fashion. Please try to stay on topic.

Does the FED rule even say that diving is only specifically illegal if the runner dives over a fielder.......from what I'm reading some might be confused with a head first slide.

Granted diving is something you don't see everyday.

It says: "Diving over a fielder is illegal." Maybe the PU judged it was a head-first airborne slide over a fielder. There is no mention of that in the rules.

Bluehair, thanks for pointing that out. Been a while since I worked FED, and had to go through the rulebook. I did find a casebook play where a runner is obstructed and then dives over the fielder. The ruling is that the runner is out immediately. So there is no instance where a runner dives over a fielder that he isn't out.

Play 1: An inaccurate throw that takes F2 into, what was an unobtructed, path of R3 to HP. Sprinting R3 has 2 choices, run through F2 or avoid colliding with F2.

Play 2: F2 has the ball, goes down to knees anticipating R3's slide attempt to score. R3 has choices among which is to dive, jump, hurdle the stationary F2.

I think the action of F2 does impact my use of 8-4-2b. The decision to D/J/H F2 in play 2 is what 8-4-2b was written for (IMO). The decision to avoid a collision in play 1 is righteous baseball (IMO).

For me, it comes down to did R3 D/J/H or did R3 avoid a collision. It is not both. Some umpires will see a D/J/H, others will see a collision avoidance. It is a judgement call (not black or white).

If R3 dove over a fielder to avoid a collision, he's out.

Runners D/H/J over fielders to a) avoid a collision and b) avoid a tag. Should this affect your ruling on the play?

The premse of the question states that runner did D/H/J over fielder. What more is there to judge.

If you want to take away the D/H/J premise, then tell me more about what F2 was doing at the time of (a) ...(b) is probably an out.

If the catcher's glove made contact with the runner's legs, even if the umpire thought the dive was legal, shouldn't he have called the runner out for being tagged on the legs?

Because, if there was no contact with the runner's legs, then the only conclusion is that the runner initiated the maneuver and was not forced into that maneuver by being tripped up.

I think what is mucking things up here, is the fact that the Russian judge over gave the player a 3 for the dive therfore, for many it is not fully defined as a Dive.

Also, why does avoiding a collision give a runner a waiver on violating another part of the rules.

Listen, I see a picture of a HP umpire wearing one Ball Bag, setting up in the wrong position for a play at the plate, and making what appears to me as an erroneous call in a Championship game for which his experience did not appear to be commensurate with the level of play. Just my opinon of course and I could be wrong but, I still agree with you Dash.

But that would not be an illegal collision or malicious contact. There are many times when contact occurs (even violent contact) that is just a "train wreck".

I am talking in general, not about this particular posted situation. You may want to try to analyze what F2 was doing at the time or if F2 initiated a 'possible' collision (can you initiate something that didn't happen?) but I'm not going to go into that.

We tend to make things more complicated then they need to be on this forum, even when things are simple.