Runner dives over catcher on tag play

[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

[justanotherump]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by justanotherump

My first thought was maybe the umpire thought the runner was avoiding a collision. However, there is no collision avoidance rule for FED.

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.