Just checking..

[kcs_hiker]

This didn't happen to me, I wasn't even there, but the coach is a good friend of mine and asked me about it.

runner is attempting to score from second on a hit to right field... catcher reaches for ball towards right field, turns to tag and the runner collides with her. Cather drops ball... runner tags plate.

Defensive coach starts screaming about the 'must slide' rule.. umpires confer.. runner is called out. Now again, I wasn't there, but my friend (who was the offensive coach)says there was no malicious contact or intent, that it was a bang-bang play. However, apparently it was a fairly serious collision.

My call (assuming the situation was as described) would be no call, runner is safe.

Comments?

[Steve M]

Can't tell from your post. Did the runner have time to avoid contact? Where was the catcher? Who's rules were they playing under - what do those rules say along the lines of "slide or aviod"?

[Andy]

This is a classic HTBT to see the whole play, but based on the info you provided.....

It can't be Obstruction since the catcher had the ball prior to the contact with the runner. This is assuming that the runner did not alter her path prior to the catcher possessing the ball. That leaves two options:

1) First of all, there is no "must slide" rule in any code that I am aware of. However, most, if not all, of the major rulesets have a "must slide or avoid" rule. If, in the judgement of the umpire, the runner was attempting to avoid the catcher and there were no malicious actions by the runner, it's no call, runner is safe.

2) There is also a rule that states that a runner cannot deliberately remain on her feet and "crash" into the defender with the ball. If, in the judgement of the umpire, the runner remained on her feet and intentionally "crashed" into the catcher, the call would be dead ball, interference, runner is out. If the contact between the runner and the catcher was judged to be malicious, the runner would also be ejected.

Sounds like the umpires in this game chose option 1. I would be interested in knowing why they had to confer, unless they were determining if there was any malicious contact and an ejection was necessary.

[BretMan]

I've seen this sort of play happening more often since the emphasis on obstruction by ASA and FED the past few years.

In fact, this happened to me as a player in a co-ed slow pitch game last summer.

I was pitching and the batter jacked one over the centerfielder's head. Looked like a sure in-the-park-homer.

Since our catcher was an inexperienced female, I came in to cover the plate. I was very careful to set-up for the throw out in front of the plate and well out of the runner's path.

The relay throw was a good one and arrived a split-second before the runner. All I had to do was bring the glove back and to the side for a swipe tag.

The runner remained on his feet running through the plate. He hit my outstretched arm (which a split-second earlier wasn't there) pretty hard, but I held onto the ball and he was called out.

It was a second later that my hand began to throb. I had held the ball firmly (thanks to a well-broken in glove) but the contact had bent the fingers of my glove back, creating enough leverage force to break a bone in my hand.

It was a bang-bang play. The fielder (me) had possession of the ball on contact. But the runner had no way to avoid the fielder who suddenly moved into his path and, in fact, had a wide-open path to the plate until I moved in for the tag.

By my description of the play, assuming the ball was dropped, would any of you think the runner should be called out for "failure to avoid"?

[rharrell]

My daughter catches for her HS team and a travel team (which I coach) and this is a sore subject with me. She has been injured in several collisions at the plate while holding the ball. Fortunately, none have been serious.

No....there is not a must slide rule, but personally I think umpires could do more to protect the catcher. If a runner comes in standing up, or even worse lowering a shoulder, there should at least be a strong warning if not an ejection.

Too many umpires don't want the controversy and catchers pay the price.

My daughter was crashed into twice in one game by the same player. Both plays were close outs, but both throws were high. Had the runner got down she would have been safe both times. The player was obviously overly aggressive, but never received a warning.

The GHSA rule changes regarding obstruction (defender has to have possession of the ball instead of in the process of recieving the ball) has some coaches encouraging players to
bump or nudge defenders that may be blocking the base, instead of focusing on critical sliding and baserunning skills.

Some preventive umpiring could go a long way in this situation.

[Andy]

Originally posted by rharrell

...If a runner comes in standing up, or even worse lowering a shoulder, there should at least be a strong warning if not an ejection...

If I'm the umpire, and I see a runner come in and lower her shoulder, there will be an ejection.

Lowering a shoulder fits the definition of malicious contact.

[kcs_hiker]

remember that I'm getting all of this second hand... and I agree with the poster who said it's one of those 'you had to be there' calls. My impression was that the catcher was reaching for the ball, which left the path to the plate open, but after she caught the ball she turned into the path of the runner...

the conference was due to the defensive coach complaining...

i's a tough call, and I agree that umpires need to be willing to protect the catcher.. and girls need to be a bit more willing to lose some skin and slide.

[Steve M]

Originally posted by rharrell

My daughter catches for her HS team and a travel team (which I coach) and this is a sore subject with me. She has been injured in several collisions at the plate while holding the ball. Fortunately, none have been serious.

No....there is not a must slide rule, but personally I think umpires could do more to protect the catcher. If a runner comes in standing up, or even worse lowering a shoulder, there should at least be a strong warning if not an ejection.

Too many umpires don't want the controversy and catchers pay the price.

My daughter was crashed into twice in one game by the same player. Both plays were close outs, but both throws were high. Had the runner got down she would have been safe both times. The player was obviously overly aggressive, but never received a warning.

The GHSA rule changes regarding obstruction (defender has to have possession of the ball instead of in the process of recieving the ball) has some coaches encouraging players to
bump or nudge defenders that may be blocking the base, instead of focusing on critical sliding and baserunning skills.

Some preventive umpiring could go a long way in this situation.

RHarrell
Like Andy said - if a runner lowers a shoulder, dead ball, unsportsmanlike, bye. That's an offensive move as opposed to a defensive covering of some part of the body. Crash, push, whatever - I've tossed players for that and that's the right and appropriate thing to do.

Andy - You had me worried when you started with "It can't be obstruction..." but clarified it with the assumption that the runner did not alter her course or speed. whew.

Back to RH - That's not just a Georgia rule (assuming that GHSA is Georgia's scholastic sports group) - that's a national rule for Fed (NFHS). It's a good rule - it's the right rule. It's been a "point of emphasis" for Fed. I'm sure my namesake in Georgia will see this one & say something - listen to him. He's in a position to affect how some of the Georgia umps call - I think.

[KBoy]

This play has always been a sore subject with me. I see umpires who want to put all the responsibility of avoiding contact on the runner.

Refering to the ASA POE#14; it states ".....the runner will be called out if he remains on his feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball and WAITING to apply the tag."

Section E in POE #14 states "If a defensive player is fielding a thrown ball and the flight of the ball carries or draws him into the path of the base runner, this would not be a crash."

Section F in POE #14 states "If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely incindental contact."

The fielder, usually the catcher, should have as much obligation to avoid the crash as does the runner. If there is a close play (ball not waiting for the runner by two steps) and the runner is only trying to get to the base, I will consider this a play under Section F. A player running full speed cannot be expected to stop and adjust in a step or two. I do agree with others on the board that stated, lowering a shoulder warrants invoking the deliberate crash rule and probably ejection. But simply raising ones hands to deflect the collision is not an agressive move.

Contact on these plays is still part of the game. Intentionally trying to dislodge the ball by physical contact with the defensive player is not.

[AtlUmpSteve]

KBoy, I agree with ALMOST everything you said. Coaches have taught catchers to block the plate and basepath since the beginning of time, and continue to blame runners for contact which is the equal responsibility of the catcher. You know, you hardly ever see the same arguement about the other 3 bases and contact; ever wonder why? I submit most of it the result of training (or lack of) of catchers.

Where you lost me was when you defended raising the arms to "deflect the collision". If there is reaction time to raise the arms, there is reaction time available to swerve, slow up, or slide; at least some effort to minimize contact. To me, the act of raising the arms is more likely an effort to push the defender, or strip the ball, and I have an automatic aggressive move reflex call.

[KBoy]

I guess I should have been a little clearer on what I meant by raised the arms. Raising the elbow, I don't accept that, but getting your hands up or just reacting to catcher being there, I treat as okay. I think we are in agreement, on the intent, just the way I stated it could have been a little clearer.