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.