Runner dives over catcher on tag play

[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.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

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 never said (nor thought) the catcher's glove made any contact with anything ... it's pretty apparent it did not. There is more to the catcher than his glove. It appears pretty obvious that there was SOME contact between the catcher's head/shoulders and the runner's upper legs.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I never said (nor thought) the catcher's glove made any contact with anything ... it's pretty apparent it did not. There is more to the catcher than his glove. It appears pretty obvious that there was SOME contact between the catcher's head/shoulders and the runner's upper legs.

R3 was already airborne if/when he contacted F2's head/shoulder. If there was no contact with the mitt, then R3 chose to dive over the fielder and he's out. Otherwise, he's out on the tag.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

You are in denial. The runner dove over the fielder. The video is not grainy.

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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.

[justanotherump]

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.

[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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.