Hey,

We had a game today where the baserunner rounded 3rd heading home. The catcher did not have the ball, but was standing on home plate awaiting a possible throw. The baserunner mowed over the catcher, who never had possesion of the ball. The throw did come, but was high and uncatchable. It got there about the time the runner did.

The ump called the runner out and immediately threw him out of the game. First of all, should the runner have been out since the catcher was in the basepath without the ball? Second, is there a rule that says the ump HAS to throw the runner out of the game after a homeplate collision...assuming that the runner was at fault?

Thanks...

ASA 8-7-Q
 

HBT but I would allow the run to score and throw the Player out for U.C. Also I might have nothing at all on the runner.

This is freaky. That exact same thing happened in my game. The catcher blocked the plate with out the ball, I had obstruction (complete with delayed dead ball signal) and the runner creams the catcher, throwing her shoulder up in into the catchers chin, sending her flying. The runner is out and ejected, following runners are returned. Offensive coach was a little mad, but not nearly as mad as the defensive coach.

But if the runner is out, the run can't score...correct?

I don't think anyone will argue the ejection with the obvious intentional contact, but they WILL argue whether the run scores.

What does whether or not people argue have to do with the correct call? ;)

Speaking ASA, check Case Play 10.8-1. Player out, ejected, run nullified for flagrant misconduct. This case play is a different situation, but the ruling would apply to the situation here, IMO, where a runner lowers her shoulder into the catcher. Out, ejection, run does not score.

Read the rule reference above your posting. Runner is always out when this happens. This isn't baseball, where the run may score and then a player can be ejected.

I had a 10U tournament game last year where the same kind of thing happened but the throw never came to the plate. The runner simply ran into the catcher and knocked her to the ground. I did call the runner out for USC but in my judgment the contact was not flagrant so I did not DQ her. Offensive coach wasn't happy but TD and UIC agreed with my ruling.

I agree up to a point.A throw 20 ft over a defenseive player's head(imho)would negate the crash rule. The rule reads in the process of or having possesion.Just because the defense is standing on the base would possibly call for obstuction.Like I said it's a HBT judgment call.

No it's not. The rule clearly states this is an out. It doesn't say it's an out sometimes, and other times an ejection but safe. It says this is an out. Why make up rules?

The onus to avoide the collision is on the runner because the runner has the job of watching where s/he is going and the fielder the ball. If the fielder is obstructing the plate the runner goes around or stops and gets the plate on the obs. There is no reason for the collision unless the catcher makes a sudden change in direction, to ever allow an intentional collision is to invite a lawsuit.

My pre game always included that "I want a clean game, keep all hitting below the belt". Usually gets a puzzled look the first time but they then pay attention and use it on their players in the dugout. Why the rule? A broken leg from a slid makes it hard to walk for a few months, a broken back from a torso to torso collision makes it hard to walk ever again.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LIIRISHMAN

Quote:

I agree up to a point.A throw 20 ft over a defenseive player's head(imho)would negate the crash rule. The rule reads in the process of or having possesion.Just because the defense is standing on the base would possibly call for obstuction.Like I said it's a HBT judgment call.

I can't think of ANYTHING that justifies a flagrant baseball-style crash into a defensive player. It is not part of the game, and after watching replays of Erstad taking out Estrada in baseball last week, I can't understand or justify why it is part of OBR.

If you have a collision, the options are:
1) with minimal contact, and ball hasn't arrived, OBS and runner is safe,
2) with reasonable contact, ball and runner arrive simultaneously, a "train wreck", no call,
3) with major body-to-body contact, and either with ball, arrives simultaneously, or even on the way, INT, and runner is out,
4) same as 3) but add flagrant/unnecessary force/lowers shoulder/etc., INT, runner is out, and runner is ejected for USC.

As I read the casebook ruling and the associated plays, I believe that INT out is included in any USC collision judgement if there was any possible play that the runner was thinking s/he was breaking up with the crash. Another casebook play (8.8-53) has a crash on the 1B side of home by a runner who has scored, and that is an INT call with USC ejection and an out on the next most advanced runner; there is a ruling trend to take an INT out with any USC crash, likely to keep any runner from justifying the crash as "for the team".

The out for USC (in addition to ejection for crashing the fielder) is fairly new in ASA. Until recently (two, three years ago?), the run was not nullified.

Even today, if the runner touches the plate and <i>then</i> crashes the catcher, the run scores.

This brought up the play where the BR gets a two-out game-winning hit, touches 1B, and after the winning run crosses the plate slugs F3 in the jaw.