Runner Knocks Ball From Catcher

[mcrowder]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Minor incidental contact. Defender DID NOT HAVE adequate CONTROL OF THE BALL - it fell out with minor incidental contact. Runner is Safe.

The only way to rule an out would be following intentional or malicious contact - that didn't happen. The runner must be called safe. So sad; too bad coach; hold on to the ball.

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.

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.

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.

[kellerumps]

Originally posted by James V
F2 has ball in glove blocking baseline awaiting the arrival of the runner.
Runner bumps F2 as F2 is applying the tag. Ball comes loose as a result of the bump, collision, (not malicious)by runner.

Is runner out or safe??

Jim

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.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by kellerumps
We can argue all day,

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

[kellerumps]

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.

[EugeneCoug]

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).

[mcrowder]

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.

[EugeneCoug]

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?

[SamNVa]

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 BEFORE the catcher has possession of the ball, then the catcher i guilty of obstruction; if the runner does things 1-3 AFTER 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.

[Dakota]

Sam (I am)...

In this box are two things I will show to you now.
You will like these two things,’ said the cat with a bow.
‘These things will not bite you, they want to have fun.’
Then out of the box came Thing 2 and Thing 1.
And they ran to us fast. They said, ‘How do you do?
Would you like to shake hands with Thing 1 and Thing 2?’
And Sally and I did not know what to do,
so we had to shake hands with Thing 1 and Thing 2.
We shook their two hands, but our fish said, ‘No, no.
Those things should not be in this house. Make them go.
They should not be here when your mother is not.
Put them out, put them out,’ said the fish in the pot

[Skahtboi]

Tom:

Step away from the computer. You are really starting to scare me....