How can you say this, DTTB? If runner made NO effort to avoid contact, and had ample opportunity to do so, how can you call them safe? Why disregard the rulebook in this manner? The rule is VERY clear on this.

Re: Unquestionably safe
 

Not only have you read more into this play than anyone has offered, I would like to know where in the ASA rule book states that this act must be intentional and/or malicious? Citations please.

Quote:

The runner must do something wrong for the umpire to arrive at some ruling that punishes the runner.

She did. She violated 8.7.Q.

Quote:

This is not a grey area - the ball is either controlled (held) or it falls out. There is no middle ground.

I guess what everyone wants to hear is if the girl extended her arms away from her body while applying the tag and dropped the ball or was run into before that. IOW, did F2 take the play to the runner or did the runner not allow it.

Going back to the orignal post. There has to be some form of contact(A Bump if you will) for a Tag to be made. The catcher, while making this tag dropped the ball.

We can argue all day, but the bottom line is that this is a classic HTBT play.

We're not arguing... we're discussing the nuances! :D

Well if nothing else, this has caused me to open the ASA rule book 1 more time. I have read and reread page 233 and 8-7-Q. That in it's self is a good thing. :)

Assume a few more facts
 

Let's assume some more facts. Let's say that F2 not only set up 3' up the third baseline, but that the runner slowed down because there was no clear, direct way to reach home plate (perhaps the runner is timid, inexperienced or outweighed by 50 lbs by the armored F2), thus allowing the ball to arrive before the runner. Let's also assume the runner was trying to avoid F2. And ASA rules apply.

Seems to me there would be a clear obstruction under this scenario, in that F2 impeded the runner's progress. Which is why F2 should not have set up there WITHOUT THE BALL. As has been pointed out elsewhere, fielders have no business being in the basepath without possession of the ball (unless they are trying to field a batted ball). Nevertheless, in that scenario, I sense that a significant percentage of umpires would not see anything wrong with what F2 did (despite ASA's clear rule).

Gene - yes, if you completely change the situation we will have a different answer. Yes - if F2 is in the baseline without the ball and causes the runner to react (AT ALL!), we have obstruction. The original play, however, was quite the opposite. F2 has the ball already, and it's her baseline. If runner is trying to avoid, and action by F2 causes the contact and subsequent drop, she's safe. But if there is contact (malicious or not, with or without intent), and runner was NOT trying to avoid such contact - we have an out.

I must have misread the facts
 

I wasn't intending to change any facts. I was adding a few facts and posing a new scenario. I understood that F2 SET UP THREE FEET UP THE BASELINE. Then the ball came. There are two possibilities that spring from that, neither of which are specifically mentioned in the original posting. One, the ball got there way before the runner, such that F2's ill-position could not have reasonably impeded the runner. Two, the ball didn't get there quite that soon. My scenario is the latter of the two.

So, assuming my scenario, a runner might do one of four things: (1) stop, (2) slow down, (3) try to go around F2, or (4) run right into F2. The last one (running into F2), as I understand it, would be the only one that would not result in a run being scored, due to the runner's failure to try to avoid contact. Otherwise, it should be obstruction.

What am I missing?

What you seem to be missing is the understanding that you're not missing anything. ;D

If the runner does any of things 1-3 <b>BEFORE</b> the catcher has possession of the ball, then the catcher i guilty of obstruction; if the runner does things 1-3 <b>AFTER</b> the catcher has the ball, then we just let the play, play out. If the runnner does thing 4 anytime, then she's out by rule 9.8.Q. THinf 4 is a bad thing.

SamC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
Most people know a lot of stuffl they just don't know that they know it.

Sam (I am)...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/421295.jpg

Tom:

Step away from the computer. You are really starting to scare me.... http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/CHCal4.gif