So What Happened

[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.