USA sanction: wrecks

[Tru_in_Blu]

We've had some local discussion lately regarding INT vs OBS vs wreck. I've scanned some old posts looking for any particulars. In one string, a post included this:

A "wreck" as defined in the rule book is an example.

So I went off in search of the definition of "wreck". There is nothing in the 2017 Rules book.

I have an online copy of ASA rules from 2007 and 2008 and did find this in the Rule Supplement 13:

F. When a defensive player is fielding a thrown ball and the flight of the ball
carries or draws them into the path of the base runner, it is not a crash.
G. When the ball, runner and the defensive player arrive at the same time
and place, and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the crash
rule, interference, or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact, or
what some persons commonly call, “a wreck.”
NOTE: If the ball does not enter dead ball territory in either E or F, the
ball remains live.

I guess I can view this as ASA/USA philosophy regarding this matter. I'm wondering when/why that wording was removed from the rules books.

I also searched my Plays and Clarifications file which contains most of the monthly publications from ASA/USA. The word "wreck" did not appear in any of them.

In many cases the call ultimately rests with the umpire's judgment. I'm hoping to get some thoughts from this forum on how you guys come to those "judgments". And then to be able to share with some of our local groups.

Thanx.

[RKBUmp]

Pretty much what the supplement says, if the runner wasn't obstructed and everyone and the ball all arrive at the same place at the same time its nothing but just a big mess, or a "wreck" as the supplement says some refer to it as.

The crash rule requires the fielder to be in possession of the ball and waiting, so even in situations where the ball arrives just before the runner, as long as they runner doesn't do anything to intentionally take out the fielder I still would not have a crash, it would simply be a wreck since there is no official designation for it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The initial part of that was to direct the umpires to not call outs and eject runner because they ran into a defender simply chasing an errant throw.

I believe the instruction to not make any call went away when the ATR part of the OBS rule was dropped. Now, any time the runner is OBS that call should be made.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The initial part of that was to direct the umpires to not call outs and eject runner because they ran into a defender simply chasing an errant throw.

I believe the instruction to not make any call went away when the ATR part of the OBS rule was dropped. Now, any time the runner is OBS that call should be made.

Irish, for my sanity's sake, how long ago was "about to receive" in the ASA OBS rule? I don't have any of the old-old books anymore, but I don't ever remember that in there. My memory tells me ATR was an NCAA rule difference.

I prefer the USA & NCAA collision rules to HS: dead ball INT out, and ejection if flagrant. NHFS is less flexible - if it's a collision out, the player is also ejected. Some locals still give me a hard time here because I had to toss a 12 year old and a 14 year old in back-to-back weekends playing PGF under Fed rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Irish, for my sanity's sake, how long ago was "about to receive" in the ASA OBS rule? I don't have any of the old-old books anymore, but I don't ever remember that in there. My memory tells me ATR was an NCAA rule difference.

I prefer the USA & NCAA collision rules to HS: dead ball INT out, and ejection if flagrant. NHFS is less flexible - if it's a collision out, the player is also ejected. Some locals still give me a hard time here because I had to toss a 12 year old and a 14 year old in back-to-back weekends playing PGF under Fed rules.

ATR was removed in 2004. Many made it much more difficult than necessary to understand and enforce. It was one of the things I thought the NCAA was correct in keeping. However, they found a way to screw it up.

However, the "crash" exception for simultaneous arrivals wasn't removed until 2014. That said, the training changed much earlier to note that it isn't a crash (for ejection purposes), not necessarily INT, but is OBS if the defender did not have possession of the ball prior to the impediment. Remember, OBS is not a punitive rule, so there is no advantage or disadvantage to either team.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

NHFS is less flexible - if it's a collision out, the player is also ejected. Some locals still give me a hard time here because I had to toss a 12 year old and a 14 year old in back-to-back weekends playing PGF under Fed rules.

teebob,

Couldn't NFHS 8.6.13 avoid an ejection? I'd think that could include incidental contact that wasn't malicious.

8.6.14 is specific to MC and that violation does require an EJ.

[RKBUmp]

Teebob, collisions in nfhs are only ejections if you deem the contact to be malicious. There is nothing in the rules about being an automatic ejection for contact.

Case play 8.4.3.Sit F even discusses a play at home with a collision. the play is either an out if the catcher maintains possession of the ball, or obstruction if the catcher drops the ball. It says it is simply viewed as a collision.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Case play 8.4.3.Sit F even discusses a play at home with a collision. the play is either an out if the catcher maintains possession of the ball, or obstruction if the catcher drops the ball. It says it is simply viewed as a collision.

RKB,

I think if F2 had the ball for a split second and drops it, it's a collision (a). If F2 never had the ball, the ruling should be OBS (b).

With something as bang-bang as that play describes, I think the old ASA description I posted in the original post makes the most sense. But, this is NFHS you're talking about...

[RKBUmp]

Even if f2 did have the ball once they lose possession of the ball it becomes obstruction if they hinder the runners access to the base.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Teebob, collisions in nfhs are only ejections if you deem the contact to be malicious. There is nothing in the rules about being an automatic ejection for contact.

Case play 8.4.3.Sit F even discusses a play at home with a collision. the play is either an out if the catcher maintains possession of the ball, or obstruction if the catcher drops the ball. It says it is simply viewed as a collision.

I'll have to review the Fed rule again; I may have an out-of-date interpretation in my head. I was speaking only of collisions initiated by the runner, not incidental contact or the colloquial "wreck". This thread has also made me discover that my 2018 HS rule book is not in my bag, as I had assumed. :| Time to go find it.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I'll have to review the Fed rule again; I may have an out-of-date interpretation in my head. I was speaking only of collisions initiated by the runner, not incidental contact or the colloquial "wreck".

Aren't all collisions pretty much initiated by the runner? They're usually the ones in motion trying to get to a base while the fielder is already there trying to field the throw, have the ball in their possession, and/or are waiting to make the tag.

I always thought that the situation was pretty clear in NFHS play. Take away any maliciousness by the runner, it can only be one of three things:

1. Fielder doesn't have the ball in her possession, runner runs into her: Obstruction.

2. Fielder has possession of the ball and almost simultaneously the runner runs into her: Collision. Runner is out or safe depending if the fielder maintains possession and tags runner or base before runner touches the base.

3. Fielder has possession of the ball and turns to make an immediate play, then the runner runs into her: Violation of 8-6-13, runner is out even if the ball becomes dislodged.

USA is a little murkier because rule 8-7-Q talks of a runner crashing into a fielder who has the ball in his/her possession, which is considered interference. But RS#13 specifically mentions the fielder "waiting to apply a tag". So if the fielder gains possession of the ball a split second before the runner contacts her standing up, is it interference under 8-7-Q, or is it just softball since the fielder isn't waiting to apply a tag? My guess is that it's the latter, but it sure would be nice if there was an actual play or clarification that says that. Irish said there used to be language about simultaneous arrivals in the ASA book that was removed in 2014, but really didn't explain why.