Collision at 1B

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

There is no attempt at a tag, and there is no indication of malicious intent on the part of the BR.
.
.
.
I asked if he considered crash interference. He did not.

Crash interference happens when the runner collides with the fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. You said there was no attempt at a tag, so you really cannot consider this as a crash under USA rules.

As you described it, I don't have anything here. The runner is entitled to the base, and as long as she doesn't do anything malicious, she can go in upright unless the fielder is standing there waiting to tag her.

But I do have to question when the contact took place, where was the fielder's glove with the ball in it? Is it entirely possible that the BR ran into the glove when she collided with F3? It's entirely possible that you had an inadvertent tag (but a tag nonetheless) if F3 was facing the BR while looking back to find the white bag. I guess it's a HTBT in that case.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Crash interference happens when the runner collides with the fielder who has the ball and is waiting to apply a tag. You said there was no attempt at a tag, so you really cannot consider this as a crash under USA rules.

I have to disagree here. This appears to be a book definition of a crash. The actual USA rule is (8.7.Q):

Q. When a defensive player has the ball and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player.
Effect:
1. The ball is dead.
2. The runner is out.
3. Runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
4. If flagrant, the runner is ejected.

This should not be based on an attempt at a tag. That is not a requirement of the rule. I know it says in the Rule Supplement "waiting to apply a tag", but the actual rule does not include those words. The rule is an effort to prevent injury and protect defensive players. I have an out here.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

I have to disagree here. This appears to be a book definition of a crash. The actual USA rule is (8.7.Q):

Q. When a defensive player has the ball and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player.
Effect:
1. The ball is dead.
2. The runner is out.
3. Runners must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
4. If flagrant, the runner is ejected.

This should not be based on an attempt at a tag. That is not a requirement of the rule. I know it says in the Rule Supplement "waiting to apply a tag", but the actual rule does not include those words. The rule is an effort to prevent injury and protect defensive players. I have an out here.

Rule supplement 13 states in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

[josephrt1]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Rule supplement 13 states in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

But the rule states

"8.7.Q. When a defensive player has the ball and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player.
Effect:
1. The ball is dead.
2. The runner is out.

[RKBUmp]

And the rules supplement is direction on how the rule is to be applied. The case play for the rule also indicates the fielder having the ball and waiting to make a tag.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

And the rules supplement is direction on how the rule is to be applied. The case play for the rule also indicates the fielder having the ball and waiting to make a tag.

A case play is just an example of one situation when a rule applies.
It is not a universal rule in itself.

The RS says waiting to make a tag; but does not say only then, just that the rule applies to that situation. It also refers to preventing injury, which is just as much a factor in any crash, not just when attempting at tag. It reads like shortsighted visualization to make an unneeded point.

To be truly literal, the fielder was attempting to tag the base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Rule supplement 13 states in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

So it is permissible to send a defender with the ball into the next century, intentional or not because the player isn't standing there waiting to make a tag?

For years the RS on obstruction clearly noted that blocking the base without the ball IS obstruction. Well, we all know that's not true as did ASA, but they kept it there as a "dummied" down version for the coaches, or so I was told.

IMO, the RS are there to aid in the application of the rules, not supersede them.

And then there is the point of the definition of "tag" which is not limited to actually touching a runner with the ball or glove containing the ball.

IMO, if the collision prevented the defender from tagging the base, it is INT

[RKBUmp]

I never said it was permissible to send F3 into the next century, nor does the original post give any indication that was the case. In fact, the post says there was no indication of any attempt at malicious contact. The post also gives no indication of how long F3 had the ball before the contact or if the runner had enough time to pull up, veer off, go around etc.

[CecilOne]

Knocking her down is close enough to next century for me.

"Upright crash" and "malicious" are two different things.

Why does "how long F3 had the ball before the contact" matter? Possession or not does not depend on time.

BR has all the time from HP to 1st when fielder is set up in the way.

The rule is about injury avoidance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Lower skilled teams. I was watching the game. USA rules.

Batter hits an infield ground ball.

F3 is set up for some reason off 1B toward home straddling the foul line.

Throw to F3 arrives before the runner arrives, and F3 clearly has possession of the ball before BR arrives.

Going to assume that at this point, there has been no impediment to the BR prior to possession

But since F3 is off the bag (and partially in foul territory) she attempts to reach back with her leg to find 1B with her foot, but is finding the orange bag, not white.

At this point F3 owns the field as long as she retains possession of the ball.

BR arrives before F3 manages to touch the white bag. BR, running toward the bag, remains upright and collides squarely with F3, knocking her down. BR then touches the orange bag.

There is no attempt at a tag, and there is no indication of malicious intent on the part of the BR.

Call?

Out.

8.7.Q: (The Batter is Out) When a defensive player has the ball and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player.

And I know what the RS has to say about a tag. Well, two things here. First, attempting to touch first base with one's foot while in possession of the ball to retire a BR is, by definition a tag. Secondly, I would defer to the stated intent of the rule which is noted in the opening of RS#13 "In an effort to prevent injury and protect a defensive player attempting to make a play on a runner..."

IMO, the "waiting to make a tag" insertion in the RS (only) was a default as to when such an act is seen the most. The RS even offers options to avoid an out ruling, three of which were available, though one very unlikely to the BR.

The act in the OP is a rarity, but think about what you would do if it were F4 turning their back to touch 2B on a force and the runner just pushed the defender aside in order to reach that base safely.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Going to assume that at this point, there has been no impediment to the BR prior to possession

At this point F3 owns the field as long as she retains possession of the ball.



Out.

8.7.Q: (The Batter is Out) When a defensive player has the ball and the runner remains upright and crashes into the defensive player.

And I know what the RS has to say about a tag. Well, two things here. First, attempting to touch first base with one's foot while in possession of the ball to retire a BR is, by definition a tag. Secondly, I would defer to the stated intent of the rule which is noted in the opening of RS#13 "In an effort to prevent injury and protect a defensive player attempting to make a play on a runner..."

IMO, the "waiting to make a tag" insertion in the RS (only) was a default as to when such an act is seen the most. The RS even offers options to avoid an out ruling, three of which were available, though one very unlikely to the BR.

The act in the OP is a rarity, but think about what you would do if it were F4 turning their back to touch 2B on a force and the runner just pushed the defender aside in order to reach that base safely.

Does that means you agree with posts 9, 10, 21?