Collision at 1B

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.
Call?

Down to the essentials, you are asking if this was interference.

"remains upright and collides squarely with F3" is the key. Yes, INT, an out.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Down to the essentials, you are asking if this was interference.

"remains upright and collides squarely with F3" is the key. Yes, INT, an out.

Yes, but I didn't want to bias the question too much.

The umpire on the field and I had a long discussion about this play.

The call was safe.

I asked if he considered crash interference. He did not.

He and I wanted the views of members here. This was a 1-man game, so the umpire's view was from the "trailing the BR" position.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This was a 1-man game

All difficult calls are excused.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

All difficult calls are excused.

[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.

[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.