Runner dives over catcher on tag play
 

The home plate umpire (nor his partners) in the deciding game of the Cass-NW Whitfield region championship series (Class AAAA - Georgia) didn't know the rule. See the attached chart, newspaper article, photo sequence, and video replay linked below. NFHS rule 8-4-2d. In NFHS rules, it is always illegal to leap over a defensive player head first whether or not that player has the ball.


Rule 8-4-2d explained
http://www.inlandumpires.com/rules/p...s_nfhs_obr.pdf

Photo sequence of the tag.

Wilson's Window

Dalton newspaper story, NW head coach, and diving player celebrate the illegal play (with photo after tag and leap)

The Daily Citizen : Bruins leap for joy


The video replay
Cass Baseball: Safe call at plate in sixth vs. NW Whitfield (Highlight): Cass High School: PlayOn! Sports

I am not sure whether they didn't know the rule or not however, as per case play 8.4.2 Sit A. they certainly did NOT properly enforce it.

It's almost as though the case play was written for that video.

One can hurdle a prone (lying flat on the ground) player.

Diving is not allowed.

Judging by the PU's positioning, my guess is he didn't know the rule.

OK, they missed it. Would have only been the second out.

According to the article, there was a HPB, an E-4, and a WP in that inning. The double by the next batter would have still tied the score.

You're right. Now I feel better. (insert sarcasm) It didn't change the complexion of the inning at all. (insert more sarcasm here) Some were before this play and some were not. Pitching change occurred after this emotional play also. There was also a baserunner that collided with an infielder on a ground ball earlier in the inning that wasn't reported in the story. That call wasn't made either.

All of this was mild compared to the night before when the team was called back on to the field following a third out call in the tenth. One umpire overruled the other on a tag play at third after the team had cleared the field. The next batter drove in the winning runs to extend the series (best of 3), so that call didn't matter either? (even more sarcasm)

Your right Dash that was the first I also noticed.

The first I think about after doing a big game is, did our team (the officials), do anything to effect the outcome of that game. In this case the incorrect call put the losing team ahead by one with the momentum clearly in their favor. That is a outcome changer.

"OK, they missed it. Would have only been the second out."

NOT ACCEPTABLE, for the importance of this game.

I'm guessing that you team lost.

If true then continue-reading else hit-back-button

Would you have posted this if your team had won? :)

Devil's Advocate.
 

As a OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA registered baseball umpire I know the rule. BUT!!

I watched the play at least five times and each time I saw the Catcher take the throw while on his knees and spin to his left in an effort to make a sweep tag on the Runner. At the same time the Runner, in an effort to avoid being tagged on his foot attempted to slow down and his momemtum causes his upper body to keep moving forward while the Catcher's body continues to move under the his body and the Runner's body goes flying over the Catcher's body. It looked ugly but I do not believe the intent or spirit of the rule was violated.

MTD, Sr.

You're correct. I probably wouldn't have posted if my son's team had won. But it appears from this Dalton Citizen article (winning team's local newspaper) that the efforts of these two umpiring crews would have still been big news.

Devin Golden: All is set right by Kyle Brock's leap (VIDEO) Sports Columns

That's a level of Zaprudering that I just can't do. He dove headfirst over a fielder attempting a play, violating the letter, spirit, and intent of the rule IMO. Out.

I've got nothing. The throw takes the fielder in to the runner..

That doesn't allow him to dive over the tag. He's out, by rule.

I called obstruction on Saturday, I don't believe the fielder intended to violate the spirit of the rule, but I called it anyway. AND it was way ugly.

That was about as blatant a case of diving over a player as I've ever seen.

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?

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And yet, he was. :D

Coach: How could you call him out on that play?
Me: Because 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.

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

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.

The unavoidable train wreck was not one of the options. The choices in play 1 were to avoid the train wreck (as done in this play) or participate in the train wreck.

There are certain things that are unquestionably unprofessional as a plate umpire, like wearing your cap backwards or having any of your equipment on the outside of your apparel.

You consider having one ball bag unprofessional? To me, that's just a matter of taste and necessity.

Hell, in HS baseball around here - it would be pointless to saddle yourself with two ball bags. Just how many baseballs are you dealing with in your area? I'm lucky if I have as many as three balls in my bag at any one time. And usually, that only lasts until the first foul ball. Much more frequently it is 2 or less. Often, I have to wave my bag limply and say, "We're out of baseballs here, coach!" I can't imagine what I'd do with another bag flapping around.

That was the players choice. Once made, then it was the umpires choice in determining what if any, rule violation might have occured and if so penalize accordingly or not, and make the call.

I never said he was "unprofessional". Perception is what we are talking about here. I also said IMOP.

True and then there are times when some need to simply the complicated to make life easier. If you want to play simplifed gotcha games. I'm not interested in playing.

You ask if F2 can initiate something that didn't happen...well something sure happened on that play. And nothing would have happened if F2 hadn't moved.
I think you just said what I said in post #53 (though much more concisely).

the runner needs to ATTEMPT (does not need to be successful) to LEGALLY AVOID (diving is not legal) the collision.

If the runner dove to avoid the collision, you should thank him for his sporting play and then call him out.

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.

If you judged that he dove over the fielder, then contact avoidance is a moot point, runner is out. Another umpire might judge that he avoided contact and that action was not a D/J/H.

Fed makes distinctions in 8-4-2b. It is not an out if player is lying on the ground or runner D/J/H over an outstretched arm (8.2.1D). That case play still baffles me (can't envision it), but it seems to suggest that the D/J/H has to be directly over the fielder. When F2 is moving/diving/falling, a D/J/H directly over that fielder is not a simple judgement to make...and requires one to umpire.

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.

I'm glad that some of you are so perfect that based on a horribly fuzzy video and 6 snapshots you can definitively tell that the umpire, who was 15 feet away and in a better position to see this, was wrong. I applaud you in your ability to determine what happened to 100% certainty.

You guys should coach.

Not exactly true. You can Jump or Hurdle (J/H) a fielder on the ground, or over his arm.

You can NEVER Dive (D) over the fielder.

Well that's not exactly right either. You can J/H over a fielder lying on the ground (prone and supine...re-learned that vocabulary on another board) :) 8.4.2A

But this still leave to the umpire whether the runner D/J/H and whether he did so "over" the fielder. I think I know the purpose of 8-4-2 and support its presents and enforcement, but not its OO (ab)use.

First, it's clearly a dive. We could look up the definition and post it, but I think we are grown ups. Like I stated before, it does leave it up to the umpire's judgement whether the fielder dove 'over' the fielder or not. My opinion, from the not as grainy as has been made out to be video and the very clear pictures, one from the opposite angle, is that the runner dove over the player. So, regardless of why, I think the runner should have been called out. Everybody misses stuff on the field at some point.

Is it wrong to point this out and try to decide what could have been done differently, so we can learn and be ready if it happens to us?

i. e. bluehair