Now that

[greymule]

The crash rule now says, ". . . the runner must be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag."

Perhaps it is good that "about to receive the ball," which was widely misinterpreted because it did not mean what it said literally, is gone. However, what do we call when a runner crashes a catcher who is juggling the ball or reaching down to pick up a ball at his feet?

Do we rely on last year's "throws the bat in anger" case play to call this runner out for USC?

[Note: For the post title, I originally entered "now that 'about to receive the ball' is gone." I guess it was too many words.]

[Edited by greymule on Feb 6th, 2004 at 12:49 PM]

[DaveASA/FED]

If I read it correctly the player has to have the ball and be waiting to apply the tag. If they are juggling or reaching they don't have the ball waiting on the tag. You can argue what constitutes "having the ball" (if juggling they might have the ball but not have control etc.) but if they are juggling or reaching then IMO they are not waiting to apply the tag. I agree with your idea that there is always UC to get them with if they crash a player without the ball. Whether the defense has the ball or not you can't plow into them! Since this is a new rule I think I am going to mention it quickly at my early season pregame conferences to remind them it does not give free rain to runners if the defense does not have the ball. I look forward to seeing how others will deal with this.

[greymule]

It may well be that crashing a defensive player who is picking up the ball is no longer illegal. It might now be like crashing a fielder who is drawn into the runner by the throw. Maybe this is why ASA is emphasizing that the fielder should not be where he can be crashed unless he actually has possession of the ball.

If this is true, it would take a USC crash—not just a crash—for us to call the runner out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
It may well be that crashing a defensive player who is picking up the ball is no longer illegal. It might now be like crashing a fielder who is drawn into the runner by the throw. Maybe this is why ASA is emphasizing that the fielder should not be where he can be crashed unless he actually has possession of the ball.

If this is true, it would take a USC crash—not just a crash—for us to call the runner out.

The only thing which has changed is the elimination of the words "about to receive". No other parts of this or any other rule relating to this has changed, so why would anyone think to call it differently.

If a runner runs into a player not in possession of the ball, it is obstruction. If the runner "crashes" (assuming any crash to be intentional) into a player not in possession of the ball, it is USC.

Now, I have not seen this year's book yet (picking them up tonight), so I don't know if the NUS made a connection on the USC and "out" call. I know it wasn't discussed in any of the open committee meeting in Orlando. And now that Henry Pollard has likely moved on, I don't know how this will be interpreted.

[greymule]

so why would anyone think to call it differently.

Because, with the removal of the "about to receive" clause, the fielder's protection of the ball being between the fielder and the runner has been eliminated. If F2 is juggling the ball and a runner unintentionally crashes into him, that runner is not out by the new rule. Last year, he was out.

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC. POE #13 E and F give examples of collisions that we are not to call crashes. These sections do not define "crash" by degree or level of contact. The defining criteria have nothing to do with USC, and allow the possibility of a severe, non-USC crash that is simply incidental contact.

In fact, what is the runner supposed to do in this situation?: he's 20 feet from home running at full steam, and the throw bounces off F2 and rolls a few feet up the 3B line. As F2 is reaching down for the ball and the runner is now five feet away, the runner should:

a. Keep going into the catcher, who (now) has no protection by rule.
b. Slow down but get an obstruction call by running into the catcher without "crashing" him.
c. Try to avoid contact and risk having F2 pick up the ball and tag him out.
d. Stop and complain to the ump that F2 is in his way without the ball.

As for any connection with the USC out call that arose last year, I haven't found any in the 2004 book yet (but I just got it last night).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
so why would anyone think to call it differently.

Because, with the removal of the "about to receive" clause, the fielder's protection of the ball being between the fielder and the runner has been eliminated. If F2 is juggling the ball and a runner unintentionally crashes into him, that runner is not out by the new rule. Last year, he was out.

No, that is not true. The previous rule only allowed the fielder to be in the base path. That's all. It did not mean a runner was out if they unintentially ran into the fielder.

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC.

That's the difference between running into a defender and crashing into a defender.

In fact, what is the runner supposed to do in this situation?: he's 20 feet from home running at full steam, and the throw bounces off F2 and rolls a few feet up the 3B line. As F2 is reaching down for the ball and the runner is now five feet away, the runner should:

a. Keep going into the catcher, who (now) has no protection by rule.
b. Slow down but get an obstruction call by running into the catcher without "crashing" him.
c. Try to avoid contact and risk having F2 pick up the ball and tag him out.
d. Stop and complain to the ump that F2 is in his way without the ball.

C. No brainer. If a player intentionally runs into a defender, that is USC. Please define "intentional" as not making an attempt to avoid the contact (my def.)

As for any connection with the USC out call that arose last year, I haven't found any in the 2004 book yet (but I just got it last night).

Neither have I and I addressed that in my post. I will get a specific answer (I hope) in March.





[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 6th, 2004 at 09:38 PM]

[greymule]

so why would anyone think to call it differently.

Because, with the removal of the "about to receive" clause, the fielder's protection of the ball being between the fielder and the runner has been eliminated. If F2 is juggling the ball and a runner unintentionally crashes into him, that runner is not out by the new rule. Last year, he was out.

No, that is not true. The previous rule only allowed the fielder to be in the base path. That's all. It did not mean a runner was out if they unintentially ran into the fielder.

This is a total contradiction of the way I interpreted the rule, and the way it was taught at ASA clinics in NJ. F2 is picking up the ball and runner runs over him—out. Ball 10 feet away and the runner runs over F2—safe. I have always thought it strange that ASA used the phrase "about to receive the ball" when they actually meant "the ball is between the runner and the fielder" as a precondition for a crash to be interference. Now I find that they meant simply "the fielder can be in the base path."

----------

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC.

That's the difference between running into a defender and crashing into a defender.

In fact, what is the runner supposed to do in this situation?: he's 20 feet from home running at full steam, and the throw bounces off F2 and rolls a few feet up the 3B line. As F2 is reaching down for the ball and the runner is now five feet away, the runner should:

a. Keep going into the catcher, who (now) has no protection by rule.
b. Slow down but get an obstruction call by running into the catcher without "crashing" him.
c. Try to avoid contact and risk having F2 pick up the ball and tag him out.
d. Stop and complain to the ump that F2 is in his way without the ball.

C. No brainer. If a player intentionally runs into a defender, that is USC. Please define "intentional" as not making an attempt to avoid the contact (my def.)

According to the rules, since F2 does not have the ball, he is guilty of obstruction if the runner collides with him. It would take a flagrant, dirty crash for me to rule otherwise.

I believe that it was in the 1998 book that ASA removed the word "deliberately" from the crash rule, with the explanation that it was too difficult to try to figure out what was in a runner's mind. Are we now again supposed to determine whether the runner tried to avoid contact?

It may be that my concept of "crash" is at the root of my confusion. I have taken the rule book to mean that there are several types of collision, among them: (1) running into a fielder, but not so hard that the contact constituted a "crash"; (2) a regular crash, which made the runner out but did not warrant ejection; (3) a flagrant crash, which warranted ejection; and (4) a wreck, which might be a severe collision, but which would be considered incidental contact (ball, runner, fielder arrive at the same time). If we're to assume that all crashes are USC unless we believe the runner tried to avoid contact, then there is no longer a "regular" crash.

As I remember, before the USC-out situation was either clarified (my state ASA guys claim that the rule was always there but we just didn't know about it) or instituted last year, a player who laid a dirty crash on a catcher who did not have the ball could be ejected for USC. However, he had not violated the crash rule since the criteria did not apply (catcher did not have possession, ball was not between runner and fielder). In fact, the fielder would have been guilty of obstruction. The runner could be ejected, but he was not called out. Starting last year, he would be called out and ejected. But to me, that would require a dirty play, not just a crash. If the throw got away and the crash occurred immediately afterward, I can't see a crash call.

Now if ASA decides that all crashes are USC outs unless the umpire believes the runner made an attempt to avoid or the collision was unavoidable, fine. Let's put that wording in the rule book.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule

This is a total contradiction of the way I interpreted the rule, and the way it was taught at ASA clinics in NJ. F2 is picking up the ball and runner runs over him—out. Ball 10 feet away and the runner runs over F2—safe.

And that is still true if it is a batted ball. But since we are discussing obstruction, that isn't the case.

I have always thought it strange that ASA used the phrase "about to receive the ball" when they actually meant "the ball is between the runner and the fielder" as a precondition for a crash to be interference. Now I find that they meant simply "the fielder can be in the base path."

I think you are confusing apples and oranges. This is not an interference issue, it is a matter of the condition of obstruction. At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.

----------

Unless we assume that all crashes are intentional, but if they were, then we wouldn't need any language about the fielder in possession of the ball—all crashes would be outs for USC.


Define "crash".


According to the rules, since F2 does not have the ball, he is guilty of obstruction if the runner collides with him. It would take a flagrant, dirty crash for me to rule otherwise.

Thank you. You just made my argument!

I believe that it was in the 1998 book that ASA removed the word "deliberately" from the crash rule, with the explanation that it was too difficult to try to figure out what was in a runner's mind. Are we now again supposed to determine whether the runner tried to avoid contact?


That was never something an umpire wasn't suppose to do. Once again, define "crash".

It may be that my concept of "crash" is at the root of my confusion. I have taken the rule book to mean that there are several types of collision, among them: (1) running into a fielder, but not so hard that the contact constituted a "crash"; (2) a regular crash, which made the runner out but did not warrant ejection; (3) a flagrant crash, which warranted ejection; and (4) a wreck, which might be a severe collision, but which would be considered incidental contact (ball, runner, fielder arrive at the same time). If we're to assume that all crashes are USC unless we believe the runner tried to avoid contact, then there is no longer a "regular" crash.


To start, there is no longer a "wreck" when it involves possible obstruction. Either the fielder has the ball, or not.

Contact does not mean it is a "crash". You cannot expect a runner to stop on a dime just because a fielder steps in the basepath with the ball. If that runner does anything which makes me believe s/he is checking-up, they will be called out, but not ejected.

If that fielder is in the basepath without the ball, that is obstruction, but not open season. Once again, if the runner gives any indication of trying to avoid contact, they are okay.

Now, if there is a fielder, with or without the ball, in the basepath (or for than matter anywhere else) and a runner gives no indication of avoiding a collision crashes into the fielder, it is a dead ball, the runner is out and ejected.

Yes, it is going to be my judgment. I don't need to read minds to see whether a runner is mean spirited or not.

As I remember, before the USC-out situation was either clarified (my state ASA guys claim that the rule was always there but we just didn't know about it) or instituted last year, a player who laid a dirty crash on a catcher who did not have the ball could be ejected for USC. However, he had not violated the crash rule since the criteria did not apply (catcher did not have possession, ball was not between runner and fielder). In fact, the fielder would have been guilty of obstruction. The runner could be ejected, but he was not called out. Starting last year, he would be called out and ejected.

But to me, that would require a dirty play, not just a crash. If the throw got away and the crash occurred immediately afterward, I can't see a crash call.

You memory is correct, but now you need to forget about whatever it is you refer to as "dirty play". If the throw gets away, it does NOT give the runner the right to plow over the fielder whether they are in the basepath or not. Such a play is now obstruction, however, if that runner continues or increases the speed of their advance and hits that fielder, they will be declared out and ejected.

I had a kid a couple of years ago rounding 3rd. He was more than 30 feet away when the catcher tried to catch the ball. The runner was more than 20 feet away when the ball bounced away from the catcher. The runner continued to advance to the plate at the same speed, crossed his arms in front of him and ran over the catcher. My ruling was easy. Run scored (today, it wouldn't), runner ejected. What did the runner have to say? "I crossed my arms to protect myself". I'm sure the catcher with the broken nose was sympathetic to his reasoning. What was worse is that his team had no substitute and had to forfeit the game (they were leading 7-2, bottom 5). Even better was that no one on that runner's team complained to me, but gave their teammate a raft of sh**.

Now if ASA decides that all crashes are USC outs unless the umpire believes the runner made an attempt to avoid or the collision was unavoidable, fine. Let's put that wording in the rule book.

The only thing I believe they need to add to the book is the connection with USC and a called out. Other than that, I think we have all the rules we need on the subject.

JMHO,


[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Feb 8th, 2004 at 04:28 PM]

[greymule]

Mike, in each play you describe, I would make the same call that you would.

Crash: violent collision.

However:

At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.

POE #13 (2002 book): "Crashing into a fielder with the ball (interference): . . . the runner must be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball or waiting to apply a tag, or if the defensive player is about to receive a thrown ball."

That looks like a determining factor to me. If in fact the "about to receive" clause has to do only with obstruction and not crashes, then ASA should not have listed it under a "crash/interference" POE and then gone on to say how the "interference" should be called. How can anyone read POE #13 and think that "about to receive" does not apply to interference?

It also seems to me that if ASA specifically stated that they deleted the word "deliberately" so that umpires would not have to judge what was in a runner's mind, they were tacitly conceding that umpires had indeed been trying to judge what was in a runner's mind. If they weren't supposed to be doing that, then ASA had misled them by using the word "deliberately." The umpires weren't misinterpreting; the were simply following the rule as written.

I agree, though, that you know it when you see it.

As far as "wreck" goes, while it's true that if it's interference or obstruction, it's not a wreck, it's still possible to have a severe, violent collision that is neither interference nor obstruction. That's a wreck.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I'm going to wrap up my part of this discussion with the following

Originally posted by greymule

At no point in time has the "about to receive" been about or a determining factor in whether there is an interference call to be made.

POE #13 (2002 book): "Crashing into a fielder with the ball (interference): . . . the runner must be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball or waiting to apply a tag, or if the defensive player is about to receive a thrown ball."

That looks like a determining factor to me. If in fact the "about to receive" clause has to do only with obstruction and not crashes, then ASA should not have listed it under a "crash/interference" POE and then gone on to say how the "interference" should be called. How can anyone read POE #13 and think that "about to receive" does not apply to interference?

I will concede that the wording is there. However, I believe it was there only as a compliment to the obstruction rule which permitted the fielder to be in the basepath without obstructing a runner under that condition.
The wording is no longer there, hence not worth the discussion.

It also seems to me that if ASA specifically stated that they deleted the word "deliberately" so that umpires would not have to judge what was in a runner's mind, they were tacitly conceding that umpires had indeed been trying to judge what was in a runner's mind. If they weren't supposed to be doing that, then ASA had misled them by using the word "deliberately." The umpires weren't misinterpreting; the were simply following the rule as written.

I believe the word was eliminated because to some point it became redundant as the runner's actions usually speak for themselves. Also, it probably confused some umpires who thought they had to read a player's mind to make the ruling.

I agree, though, that you know it when you see it.

As far as "wreck" goes, while it's true that if it's interference or obstruction, it's not a wreck, it's still possible to have a severe, violent collision that is neither interference nor obstruction. That's a wreck.

Can't be as if the wreck as you describe it occurs and the fielder is not in possesion of the ball, it must be obstruction. Part of the reason for the rull change was to get the fielders out of harm's way. Remember, an obstruction call is not a penalty to the defense, but just allowing the offense to obtain what they would have without impediment. The ASA didn't help us with this change as the wording to the Umpire's Manual part was not changed to reflect the new rule. Yes, collisions happen and they are all HTBT, but when it comes right down to it, there is no reason to protect a runner impeded by a fielder who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

JMHO,

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by greymule
[Note: For the post title, I originally entered "now that 'about to receive the ball' is gone." I guess it was too many words.]

I don't think it works with quotes, single quotes or HTML code in the thread title.