Ok topic on another board made me want to know what you all thought. What is a crash that would result in you envoking ASA 8-7Q? There are some that think any contact should be considered a crash. During the state clinic I attended this year I specifically asked about this and was told that unless it was intentional contact this rule should not be inforced. And I agree with this it even describes the rule in the index as "Deliberate contact with a fielder with the ball." What say you all?

I'll disagree. POE #13 and rule 8.7.Q make no mention of the contact being intentional. However, if you think about it, other than the defender jumping into the path of an advancing runner, it is always going to be intentional. I've said this before and I'll continue to say it, if the runner shows no sign of attempting to avoid the contact, s/he must be running into the player on purpose.

Too many people fail to recognize the purpose of the rule. It doesn't exist just to attempt to prevent unsportsmanlike conduct, but it is for safety's sake. Almost EVERY softball player will need to get up the next day and go to work or school and all should expect to get on with their life in a normal fashion without being injured by a player who just isn't smart enough or has been properly coached to avoid contact.

Since some coaches and players place winning ahead of everything, there must be a rule in place to deter them from believing there is an advantage to running someone over and will coach the players to a level where they will help the team by avoiding contacting a player when it is not necessary, and it is NEVER necessary.

I understand your view, what I am worried about is the rule says 'has, or is about to catch a thrown ball'. I notice POE 13 doesn't mention this case. So if you assume any contact is delibrate and would envoke 8-7Q then if a girl is blocking the base waiting on a throw and she runs into her leg trying to get a foot to the base, she is out for INT under 8-7Q as she delibertly "crashed" into the fielder?? I am not trying to split hairs but the original post on the other board was about a girl brushing F2 as she ran into home and F2 was about to receive the ball, runner was trying to hit the back portion of the plate as F2 was standing on the front of it. Unless that was a misprint in the rule book, we should never have OBS if contact is made (without a slide) with a fielder blocking the base if they are about to receive a throw.

What you said abotu attemting to avoid contact is how I rule on the field, you can tell if they tried to get around them or if they were running into them. That to me makes it a deliberate act to result in enforcment of 8-7Q.

The play described, at least the one I think Dave is referring to, was intentionally set up to be marginal. Here it is:As I visualize this, I wouldn't call this interference. It sounds more like the runner trying, but not quite succeeding, to avoid contact. It also sounds like the "slight brush - maybe" had nothing to do with the catcher dropping the ball - more like the catcher was intimidated or excited about the approaching runner.

Also from eteamz, here is an intentional crash, as described by an 18U player... (slightly editted for readability)This sounds like clear INT and possibly USC/EJ. But apparently at least some umpires aren't calling this.

Tom,

Is this the post you meant? [reyogold's]

<b>Any age

Not deliberate

Fielder not coming into baseline to catch the throw.

But 8-7Q says the runner cannot "remain upright and crash into the defensive player" in possession of the ball or about to catch a thrown ball.

As I asked - what is a crash? Any contact?

A runner need not slide, but in neglecting to, does she not put herself in jeopardy of this type INT call?</b>

I saw nothing in this play.

Let me emend a point in my previous statement. When I say all crashes must be intentional save the case where a defender jumps into the path at the last second.

What I failed to make clear is that in the case of my statement, I am assuming the runner is looking where they are running. If for some reason the runner is looking in another direction, then I can absolutely see where that should not be called a USC.

Yes. I was quoting his initial description of the play.

The ASA rule book used to specify "deliberately," but they took that word out, with the explanation that they didn't wan't umpires to try to read the runner's mind. So to gauge a crash on whether it was deliberate runs counter to ASA's thinking.

If ASA means something other than <i>crash,</i> which denotes great force and even destruction (a car "crash" does not mean a broken headlight), they should use another word. When the runner steals second standing up and bumps into the fielder standing on the bag, I can't see that <i>crash</i> applies, though many coaches certainly scream for it.

I suspect that umpires who read <i>crash</i> literally will call far fewer crashes than umpires who interpret the word according to other criteria (intent, ability to avoid, any contact, etc.).

Remember that the rule was instituted to prevent the Pete Rose–Ray Fosse play that was all too common in SP in the 1970s. Runners felt obliged to try to dislodge the ball the way they had learned in baseball. Runners crashed into me many times; I never got hurt, either, probably because I expected the runner to come in hard and didn't stand in front of a base while looking toward the outfield for a throw.

Of course, we need a crash rule. But the fact that there is so much uncertainty about what constitutes a crash means that ASA should define <i>crash</i> precisely.

In fact, the justification for the new rule (sometime around 1981) was just as Mike said, "Players need to get up the next day and go to work."

[Edited by greymule on Jul 1st, 2004 at 03:05 PM]

greymule,
I like the way you describe it. That is how I interp the rule. It was designed to keep people from trying to either knock the ball loose or keep someone from catching it. If they knock knees while trying to slip a foot to the base, that is a nothing IMO.

runner responsibility
 

So what does all this mean in the case of a runner looking where they are going and stomping on the fielder's foot at 1st or sliding into the catcher taking the catcher down? Both cases, not an OBS.

Does it matter whether the ball come loose or not?

Does it matter whether it is softball players or AA?

I'll save Mike the trouble of saying the coach should teach F3 to stay off the base and only ask about the runner's responsibility if F3 does not or someone else is covering.

My pre-game always includes a reminder that all hitting needs to be below the belt, if I get torso to torso there's a judgement call coming and as a rule the runner isn't going to like it (exceptions are the sudden moves by the defense or a stuck cleat). What is important is that you also be consistent in protecting a runner that does go around to avoid a collision so that they never get it in their heads that they should have knocked her block off because the blue didn't protect the runner.