Your call??

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Some things to consider for this play.

Collision Rule (NCAA 2014)
SECTION 7. The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate). PENALTY—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner. If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

You forgot the most relevant part--this only applies if the fielder is in possession of the ball.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Matt

You forgot the most relevant part--this only applies if the fielder is in possession of the ball.

If you parse the rule I don't see where position of the ball is required in all cases.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

If you parse the rule I don't see where position of the ball is required in all cases.

That's because he, for some reason, removed it. The missing part is in bold belpw:

"The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge:

If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession of the ball, the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).

PENALTY: If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY: If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner.

If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

(4) If the runner's path to the base is blocked and (1), (2), and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact (see Rule 2-54, Obstruction)."

It's kind of important, because that's the relevant part of the rule.

[jicecone]

Your right Matt because, that part of the rule does only pertain to a fielder in possession of the ball, which was not the case here.

However, Par 3 can be applicable.

The Title of the Rule is "Collision Rule"

I believe it covers both situations though.

JMO

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Your right Matt because, that part of the rule does only pertain to a fielder in possession of the ball, which was not the case here.

However, Par 3 can be applicable.

The Title of the Rule is "Collision Rule"

I believe it covers both situations though.

JMO

None of it can be applied (as of now,) and here's why--

The rule was written with the very specific intent of protecting fielders with the ball. The verbage hasn't changed since the adjustments to other related rules. So, the question is if the rule should still be enforced with its original intent, or not? Unless Jim Paranto comes out and says that the clause should have been rewritten, it still refers only to fielders with possession.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Matt

None of it can be applied (as of now,) and here's why--

The rule was written with the very specific intent of protecting fielders with the ball. The verbage hasn't changed since the adjustments to other related rules. So, the question is if the rule should still be enforced with its original intent, or not? Unless Jim Paranto comes out and says that the clause should have been rewritten, it still refers only to fielders with possession.

I think it's a ridiculous notion that a fielder who has possession of the ball is less prepared for a runner who aims to collide with him than a fielder who just mishandled a batted ball as in this play, or a fielder who is waiting for or in the act of catching a thrown ball. When that fielder is focused on the ball instead of the runner, he's not going to be able to brace himself for impact. In this day and age where concerns for concussions in sports has gone viral, I find it hard to believe the rule is intentionally so narrow focused.

Surely someone of authority has viewed this video to determine who needs to be suspended, and determined that an Approved Ruling needs to be announced now to address this huge chasm in the collision rule.

[MD Longhorn]

Manny - if they don't have the ball, they're not supposed to be in the way in the first place. The rule was written to stop the practice of players trying to crash through fielders that had the ball, trying to dislodge the ball. It was not written to protect fielders who are obstructing.

[dash_riprock]

It should, but it doesn't. When NCAA changed the obstruction rule in 2011, they neglected to change the Collision Rule as well. The two rules need to be consistent. The Collision Rule should apply whenever the fielder is permitted to completely block the base (plate).

[jicecone]

I can live with that. Don't do NCAA ball anymore so I was just going by the what I read.

I guess I should know better though.

Thanks for the clarification.

[charliej47]

The "step and a reach" rule for NFHS only pertains to Softball. they have left it out of baseball. The Softball Case book actually has those words in the play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by charliej47

The "step and a reach" rule for NFHS only pertains to Softball. they have left it out of baseball. The Softball Case book actually has those words in the play.

The words might not be there, but the concept certainly is.

[charliej47]

I went back and looked. Baseball states "initial play" for protection. I would have ejected because the runner left the base path to dump the fielder. I would deem that malicious.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by charliej47

I went back and looked. Baseball states "initial play" for protection.

8-4-2g "a fielder is not protected except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original position"

1) "move from original position" is essentially the same as, and is interpreted as, "step and reach"

2) you can certainly make a case that the OP was "intentional contact" (even if you don't judge it to be MC; and it's (practically) required if you do judge it to be MC)

[jicecone]

Bottom line here guys, in this case the batter-runner blantly traveled into fair territory to crash into the fielder and contact would have been made whether the fielder had gained possesion of the ball or not. I am penalizing that in any game I do.

Matt may be hundred perecnt correct that the the intent of the NCAA Collision Rule may not fully apply here however, I am sure there are other sections more appropriate to cover this. Again my familarity of NCAA rules may not be up todate but, I cant imagine NCAA condoning what happened here.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Matt may be hundred perecnt correct that the the intent of the NCAA Collision Rule may not fully apply here however, I am sure there are other sections more appropriate to cover this. Again my familarity of NCAA rules may not be up todate but, I cant imagine NCAA condoning what happened here.

No, man...I'm stating the opposite--the intent to penalize is probably there, but until they actually specify it, there's nothing to go on.