Collision at 1B

[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.