Dixie 13-15. But interested in opinions on all, especially ASA since I call some there too.

R3, passed ball. Ball hits backstop and rolls toward 3B dugout. Pitcher comes in, straddling baseline, at least 2 yards in front of the plate. Runner collides straight up with pitcher at about the time the catcher picked up the ball. Your call?

I'll wait for the results to tell you my call and the coach's possibly valid (but eventually discarded) complaint.

Not sure I have enough info here, but I'll give it a shot. If the runner deliberately ran into the pitcher with malicious force, I'm calling her out and ejecting her. If the force was mild and no malicious intent (in my opinion of course) let it go and play ball. I'm sure the coach will talk to the pitcher about where to stand. Since the pitcher didn't have the ball, you could call obstruction in Fed and ASA. However, the intent is what it all hinges on. If the runner meant to knock her down or back, it overrides the obstruction and she's out and gone.

Speaking ASA.

If "colliding straight up" means the runner could have, but made no effort to avoid the collision, she is ruled out and ejected.

If there was no time because the pitcher just jumped in front of her, it is obstruction, score the run.

Mike, with the way the new rule is written that a defensive player must have the ball in order to be in the runner's path, does the runner still have the obligation to go around the defender in this situation? The way I read the rule and read this situation, it's obstruction all the way. Speaking ASA of course.

It does not make a defender without the ball fair game. Dumb move on behalf of the defender, yes; right to be used as a tackling dummy, no. All players have an obligation to avoid a collision, if possible.

There is no rule forbidding a defender from being in the runner's path. The rule forbids impeding the progress of a runner without the ball.

I called her out and ejected for malicious contact. She didn't lower her shoulder, but from what I saw (I was watching runner and pitcher, not the ball), she had time to avoid.

Coach claims she was watching the ball and didn't see the pitcher until it was too late to avoid. And with the pitcher that far up the line it was certainly to early to slide and still make it to the base. I settled him down with "MUST SLIDE OR AVOID" - she failed to do either. I also told him if she'd made ANY effort to get around the pitcher, I'd have called obstruction.

This was a strange game. We had the first ejection of the year, the first obstruction call of the year (same pitcher), the first interference call of the year (R2 collided with SS making a play with bases loaded) for this agegroup (this group's 4th or 5th game) and a girl called out for throwing her bat - and they were all called against the same team. This same team won, by run rule. Coach (I've known for a few years) was civil throughout all the calls, mostly getting on his players for them. Also had a ground ball that went about 3 inches in front of the plate and stopped in the soft sand where no one ran. Catcher picked up the ball and accidentally tagged the runner. Again - "against" the same team.

The coach needs to understand that it is HIS job to watch the ball, not the runners.

I'll bet none of us could count how many times we've heard, "Don't look at the ball, look at me" in our lifetime.

Mike - Help me out with a rule cite here (ASA). I don't have the book here at work or I would research myself.

My first thought was to penalize the obstruction, award home, then eject the runner due to the malicious contact. What am I missing here that would declare the runner out?

WHY ? The fielder didn't have the ball.

Come on!
 

That is the very point. Intentional collisions are absolutely unacceptable - they must be avoided. Independent of where the ball is, or if the defense has it or anything about the ball...

Collisions should be avoided as reasonable. PERIOD.

Intentionally running into someone is never, never, never acceptable. I don't understand why some of us are not understanding this SIMPLE safety rule.

You must be watching too many collisions on TV baseball games. Intentional collisions are not allowed.

what is the significance of this play, that is, why would the connotation be "accidently" tagging the runner isn't that what a catcher would want to do?

She, as well as the batter, didn't realize the ball was even in play. She is left handed, luckily (for her). She picked it up, and her hand hit the batter's left shoulder as she was getting ready to throw back to the pitcher. That's what I mean by accidental.

Like I said - VERY sloppy game.

As for the contact - she can't just crash into the player, even if the player is illegally in the baseline. This was not, in my opinion, accidental.

Not according to Mr. Pollard. Even though his vision finished 17th in the Derby, I have to assume his mind is just fine :)

There is a case book play (Section 10, not sure of play number).

I intend to submit a rule change in November specifically addressing this issue.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on May 5th, 2004 at 04:48 PM]

DTTB , If it was malicious I wouldn't argue. If the ump just says "must slide or avoid " I would like to know why, when the fielder does not have the ball. I agree with the final call. I wasn't real clear on the reason given to the coach. Brian

Age 13 - 15 REC ball. I don't see this at intentional at all. I see young and/or inexperienced players focusing on getting home, not sure whether to slide or not; see's no play so stays upright. Probably didn't even "see" the pitcher.

For us, as adults, to look into the mind of a teenage girl and say "Oh, you did that deliberately," or "You had plenty of time to avoid the collision" and eject them from the game is wrong, IMO. I've spent too many years coaching this age group, in both REC ball and H.S. JV teams and I know how these girls do, and do not, react to game situations.

Varsity ball, or 16U TB, definately make the call. However, note that NFHS does support the obstructed runner making some contact with the fielder. Casebook 8.4.3.SIT D: F2, without the ball and with no chance to catch the ball, is blocking home plate. R1 pushes F2, but not flagrantly, out of the base path and touches home plate. RULING: Obstuction."

WMB

Due to Dixie's vague rules on conduct and sportsmanship, it would be hard to justify an immediate ejection. Ejection is mentioned twice in the rulebook - under definitions and under rule XII. According to rule XII, only throwing equipment and profanity warrants an automatic ejection. Any other unsportsmanlike conduct requires (1) warning before the player is ejected. A flagrant act requires the player to leave the premises after an ejection. Based on Dixie rules, a protest may cause your ruling to be overturned if the ruling body foregoes common sense. Rule XII B empowers the umpire to call the runner OUT in this situation.

[Edited by alabamabluezebra on May 5th, 2004 at 03:39 PM]

That alone says a mouthful!!! :D

I think perhaps the only thing I did wrong was not make the girl leave the premesis. Again, I was not watching the ball... I was watching the runner / pitcher. She had ample opportunity to avoid, and I believe she collided intentionally because she was ticked off that the pitcher was in her way.

No one said it was, nor does the rule require it to be.

Quote:

I see young and/or inexperienced players focusing on getting home, not sure whether to slide or not; see's no play so stays upright. Probably didn't even "see" the pitcher.

I see a player which needs to learn how to play the game. If you continue to make excuses for them, they will never learn

Quote:

For us, as adults, to look into the mind of a teenage girl and say "Oh, you did that deliberately," or "You had plenty of time to avoid the collision" and eject them from the game is wrong, IMO. I've spent too many years coaching this age group, in both REC ball and H.S. JV teams and I know how these girls do, and do not, react to game situations. Varsity ball, or 16U TB, definately make the call.

I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with what the umpire and opponents experience. If something happens, there must be repercussions. Doesn't have to be intentional. People have car accidents all the time and most of them are not intentional, but the individual at fault is still held responsible, supposedly regardless of their age.

Quote:

However, note that NFHS does support the obstructed runner making some contact with the fielder. Casebook 8.4.3.SIT D: F2, without the ball and with no chance to catch the ball, is blocking home plate. R1 pushes F2, but not flagrantly, out of the base path and touches home plate. RULING: Obstuction." WMB

And that is fine, for Fed. This was Dixie and an ASA ruling was invited. I simply noted what should happen in ASA. An umpire enforces rules, not opinions. Don't see any other way to handle this than in the manner prescribed.

As I get this, the out for UC is just "speaking ASA".

I do agree with the ejection if it appeared to be malicious or flagrant contact, obstruction otherwise. However, I would not banish a youth player from the field unless accompanied by a coach or parent, even though only NFHS forbids it.

The following are worth repeating:

"It does not make a defender without the ball fair game. Dumb move on behalf of the defender, yes; right to be used as a tackling dummy, no. All players have an obligation to avoid a collision, if possible.

There is no rule forbidding a defender from being in the runner's path. The rule forbids impeding the progress of a runner without the ball."

"Intentionally running into someone is never, never, never acceptable. I don't understand why some of us are not understanding this SIMPLE safety rule.

You must be watching too many collisions on TV baseball games. Intentional collisions are not allowed."

Thank you for the rule change
 

I am glad to see our ASA umpires accept the new obstrution rule. It is finally a fair situation for the smaller runner against the giant bully catchers! I do have a question though? Can a 3B hover on top of the base to recieve a throw down from the catcher... This forces the runneers to come back low(and dirty) or slow and blocked out. Whats your outlook on the matter?

Thanks.....JD

Mike,
the only ruling for flagrant misconduct I could find
in Section 10 was,

Play 10.8.1 - R1 on 3b, B2 hits a fly ball to F7. Thinking the ball will
be caught, B2 throws his bat in anger. The ball bounds off F7 and clears the
fence. Umpire rules dead ball. Calls B2 out nullifying his run and ejects B2.
R1 is returned to 3B.
Ruling: Correct ruling for flagrant misconduct (10-8A, 10-1J(3); 10-1K)

Okay, but I'm missing your point.

I think at 15U - with a HTBT play and as described my the poster - an ejection is definately a viable option under ASA and seems to be the correct call. I also coach and ump these age groups; and I agree with you in general that most of the younger aged girls would be more prone to error than intentional/malicious contact; interference with ejection is most definately still not "off the table" for any age group - if the runner came down the line and creamed that pitcher without making any attempt to avoid - I would definately call that runner out - ejection is a real possibility. I do not agree with turning this into an obstruction based on age group... especially that particular senior age group prior to HS Ball. There is no age group where malicious contact could never occur.

"I called her out and ejected for malicious contact. She didn't lower her shoulder, but from what I saw she had time to avoid."

Why is everybody so anxious to eject these kids from a ball game. Depending on the organization, that can be one hell of a penalty. We recently had a girl lose most of four games because of an ill-advised ejection. (She lost that game and the rest of the day - 2nd game of DH, and the next day of play - also a DH.)

The ASA (and NFHS) rule is very clear; runner stays on her feet and crashes into defender, runner is out for interference. Period! OUT.

Now if the contact is Flagrant (ASA) or Malicious (NFHS) then you have a new ruling, separate from the interference call. Now the penalty is ejection (USC).

But what is Flagrant? ASA does not define it. Mcrowder has decided that flagrant means that, in his opinion, the runner had time to avoid the contact. So what? If the runner had time to avoid, and did so, we would not have an interference call. But she didn't. So we call INT and call her out. But flagrant? Webster defines flagrant as:

"so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality" or " conspicuously bad or objectionable. FLAGRANT applies usually to offenses or errors so bad that they can neither escape notice nor be condoned"

This sounds pretty serious. It fits in with the NFHS definition of Malicious Contact as "an act involving excessive force with an opponent."

To find for Flagrant or Malicious Contact, I need to see a deliberate action that indicates contact with the opponent without regard for that opponent's welfare or safety. If a player deliberately wants to hit someone, they will protect themselves first. They will lower a shoulder, tuck in the head, or hold the arms out as a battering ram. If a girl is not protecting herself, that action is probably accidental contact. Accidental contact can be cause for interference, but no matter how severe, it should never be grounds for ejection.

WMB

If a runner had time to attempt to avoid a collision..please note, I said ATTEMPT. Obviously, at certain points, not all things can be totally avoidable. However, if a runner has the time and ELECTS to not try to avoid a collision and does not slide, that is intent. Any player at any age who intentionally runs into another player MUST be made to understand that is not acceptable. In my judgment, this is also an act of unsportsmanlike conduct, and the penalty for that is to be ejected.

In ASA, the ONLY penalty for being ejected is removal from THAT game and that game only. Additional actions or the severity of the original act COULD cause a TD to impose additional sanctions, but that is beyond the situation about which we are speaking.

And please to not whine about the little girls not knowing any better. That is no reason to NOT make this sort of ruling. The umpire only has to come to this point AFTER the parents, coaches and teammates have failed. And remember, the player which could have been or was injured by this action of the same age group and just as susceptable to have her body and feelings hurt as much as the runner.

I didn't mean to mislead anyone, or redefine "Flagrant". But even though this girl didn't lower her shoulder, she definitely saw that the girl was in her way, and did not slow down when bowling over the catcher. I know this was a HTBT, but from 4 feet away (where I was), this was pretty flagrant.

I should add, for WMB's benefit, that I am very reluctant to toss a player - this was (so far) the only ejection of a player I've had this year, but I fully believe it was warranted.

Re: Come on!
 

I had a game this past weeked (10U ASA league championship game). R1 on 2B, 1 out. On base hit to outfield 3B coach sent R1 home. At this time I look at HP and see the catcher standing directly on top of it. Very little of the plate was exposed. I give DDB signal in anticipation of obstruction. As the ball came back in from the outfield, it went to the pitcher and never came to the catcher so there was no play at the plate (no longer obstruction at that point). The runner however did not slide and made no attempt at all to avoid contact in order to touch the plate. She put her arms up to her chest so as to protect herself and she ran square into the catcher, knocking her down on her backside. I call DB and rule the runner out for crash interference. I did not eject her from the game because she did not push the catcher down and at that age she probably didn't know any better. If she would have made any attempt at all to avoid, I would have allowed the run and talked to the defensive coach about where to position his catcher. My UIC and the TD both agreed with my ruling.

There has to be a consequence for crashing into players who do not have the ball. If there wasn't, it would happen all the time. Sometimes by our rulings we as umpires teach the young ones more about the game than some coaches. One thing is for sure. I'll bet from now on that catcher won't stand on top of the plate with out the ball and that runner won't knock a player over any more. (maybe)

Re: Re: Come on!
 

ASA gives you more citations and references backing up the ejection than they do ruling the runner out in this case. BTW, how can the catcher get knocked down on her backside, but not be pushed down by the runner. What would you do if the catcher saw the runner coming and braced herself for the collision by turning a shoulder into her? You would probably call obstruction and dump the catcher, I know I would and have. So, what's the difference between the runner hitting the catcher and the catcher hitting the runner? My response would be none since it is quite obvious the "crash" was intentional.

Once again, the ejection is nothing more than sitting the remainder of that game. If the girl had time to cross her arms and brace herself, there is no doubt that this was not only a deliberate act, but probably COACHED. Sorry, I disagree with all you bleeding hearts :) If there is an intentional crash, the player should be ejected. And before everyone comes up with the "but what if they just bump them" or some other weak-sister comparisons, I mean crash, run into, knock down.

Whether you think the result isn't worth an ejection or not, remember it only takes one ill-conceived turn, one inaccurate physical reaction, one bad fall, etc. to ruin a young girls life. There is a reason for the rule and it has nothing to do with feeling good about oneself. They are meant to be a deterent to dangerous play and are useless if the umpires will not enforce them.

Re: Re: Re: Come on!
 

Because she got bumped into not pushed.

Quote:

What would you do if the catcher saw the runner coming and braced herself for the collision by turning a shoulder into her?

That's not what we're talking about here now is it?

Quote:

If the girl had time to cross her arms and brace herself, there is no doubt that this was not only a deliberate act, but probably COACHED.

Now that's quite an assumption.

Quote:

Sorry, I disagree with all you bleeding hearts :) If there is an intentional crash, the player should be ejected. .

Lighten up Francis this was a 10U game. At that age most girls have no idea what an intentional crash is. Besides, she spent the next two innings crying because she was called out at the plate. Why humiliate a 9 or 10 year old by ejecting them?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on!
 

Yes, actually it is. The discussion is about the application of the rule for an act of USC. It applies in both directions.

Quote:

If the girl had time to cross her arms and brace herself, there is no doubt that this was not only a deliberate act, but probably COACHED. Now that's quite an assumption.

Not as far fetched as you would like to believe. It is not unusual to hear a coach tell players to:

Next time, run right through her.
Next time, plant the throw between her eyes.
Next time, if she doesn't move, move her.

It also isn't unusual for a coach or player, and sometimes a parent, be stupid enough to say that out loud as if an attempt to intimidate the other team or umpire.

Quote:

Sorry, I disagree with all you bleeding hearts :) If there is an intentional crash, the player should be ejected. Lighten up Francis this was a 10U game. At that age most girls have no idea what an intentional crash is. Besides, she spent the next two innings crying because she was called out at the plate. Why humiliate a 9 or 10 year old by ejecting them?

When umpires lighten up, they are not doing their job. I really don't care what the age of the players is and that the runner was called out. ASA states if you do that, ejection must be included as it is a package deal. BTW, I guess the other player (catcher) is a non-entity in this play. Would you be so cavalier if she had been injured? And yes, it does matter because that is the PURPOSE of the rules.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on May 20th, 2004 at 08:32 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on!
 

A distinction without a difference. As described, she did not "bump" into her, she braced herself to protect herself, and crashed into the defender.

Quote:

Now that's quite an assumption.

Are you new? Meaning no disrespect, but if you view 10U coaches being incapable of coaching this kind of behavior, I suspect you haven't gotten out much.

Quote:

Why humiliate a 9 or 10 year old by ejecting them?

So you would rather endanger the other 9 or 10 yo player? Perhaps the runner's actions were as innocent as you believe them to be. Nonetheless, you are doing the game no favor if you allow this kind of baserunning to slide by without proper rules enforcement. The coaches and the players need to learn that, whether or not the defender had the ball (i.e. irrelevant to the interference call), intentional crashing into a defender is USC, and will result in ejection. It is a safety rule. It needs to be enforced, not ignored because the umpire is afraid of hurting the player's feelings.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Come on!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

Perhaps the runner's actions were as innocent as you believe them to be. Nonetheless, you are doing the game no favor if you allow this kind of baserunning to slide by without proper rules enforcement. The coaches and the players need to learn that, whether or not the defender had the ball (i.e. irrelevant to the interference call), intentional crashing into a defender is USC, and will result in ejection. It is a safety rule. It needs to be enforced, not ignored because the umpire is afraid of hurting the player's feelings.

Tom & Mike,
Perhaps you're right. I wasn't trying to start a debate over whether or not an ejection was warranted. Maybe is was. I absolutely agree that crashing into a defender (with or without the ball) is a safety issue. I explained that to the coach when I ruled the runner out. On this play (in my judgement) I felt that there was no malicious intent on the part of this 9 or 10 year old runner. That is why I didn't eject her. Now had this been an older kid I probably would have ejected her. I just think that we don't have to be quick on the draw to sit a player down unless we determine it necessary based on the situation. Like most plays described on this board this is probably a HTBT situation. If you would have seen the play, maybe you would agree with my ruling.