So What Happened

[Manny A]

Article I read this morning. I haven't read new rule 7.13, nor did I see the play in question. But from his description, why doesn't the obstruction rule come into play? And is it true that collisions are legal as long as there's no evidence of maliciousness as the article alludes?

Midweek Morosi: New rule on collisions bringing more cloudiness than clarity | FOX Sports on MSN

[Robmoz]

Brantley out at home | MLB.com

[bob jenkins]

Here's the text of the rule (at least based on a news release). It is a little confusing that they use "without possession" in the new rule, but I don't think they changed the OBS rule "in the immediate act of fielding the ball" (or whatever the specific words are.

In any event, I think the ruling on the play was correct.

OFFICIAL BASEBALL RULE 7.13 COLLISIONS AT HOME PLATE

(1) A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate). If, in the judgment of the Umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the Umpire shall declare the runner out (even if the player covering home plate loses possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the Umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision.

Rule 7.13 Comment: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner's lowering of the shoulder, or the runner's pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 7.13. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 7.13. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner's buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher.
(2) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 7.13 if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the Umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner and that contact with the runner was unavoidable.

[Manny A]

Wow, I just watched the video, and I can't believe 7.13(2) would penalize a catcher who sets up in the pathway without the ball, but then receives the ball well before the runner gets there, as what happened here.

So, if a catcher sets up in the pathway without the ball, and the runner collides with the catcher just as the ball enters his mitt, what prevails? Do they call the runner Out under 7.13(1), or Safe under 7.13(2)??

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Wow, I just watched the video, and I can't believe 7.13(2) would penalize a catcher who sets up in the pathway without the ball, but then receives the ball well before the runner gets there, as what happened here.

It doesn't. There was no penalty.

So, if a catcher sets up in the pathway without the ball, and the runner collides with the catcher just as the ball enters his mitt, what prevails? Do they call the runner Out under 7.13(1), or Safe under 7.13(2)??

Safe if the catcher blocked the runner's path while neither in possession of, nor in the act of fielding, the ball.

[DG]

It appears the rule is written such that catcher must have the ball to block the plate, otherwise obstruction. It also appears collisions are legal as long as the runner is trying to reach the plate and not doing so maliciously. Sounds a lot like the college rule.

In this replay he had the ball so the challenge must have been about whether he did or not.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by DG

It appears the rule is written such that catcher must have the ball to block the plate, otherwise obstruction.

Read the last sentence of the rule.

[PABlue]

Looked textbook to me, the catcher did his job perfectly and the plate umpire was right on the call. No obstruction for sure as he clearly had the ball in his possession before the play and the runner was not impeded.

[rbmartin]

Everything worked perfectly here. Pitcher did his job perfectly. Catcher did his job perfectly. Runner made a nice a effort WITHOUT "teeing off" on the catcher. HP did his job perfectly and made the correct call. Everybody involved lives to fight another day. Life is good.