contact at the plate - must slide?
 

Keep running into this again and again

ASA 16U fastpitch If I remember the rule correctly, it states Runner is out when "She remains upright and crashes in to the defender in posssesion of, or about to receive the throw." Contact determined to be malicious; she's ejected.

Okay, what determines a crash? Isn't this a judgement call by PU?

Situation last night- runner coming home, doesn't slide, but stops when she touches the plate. Play was closer than necessary (because she stopped), but the ball is missed by the catcher, who was standing on top of the plate. There was minor contact between runner and catcher.

PU allowed the run, he was right on top of the play. Then........BU gets involved (without being asked-he's head of our association) after coach says "she's gotta slide" and calls the out.

A discussion followed:
BU - she was about to receive the throw
Coach (me) -there was not a crash, catcher missed the ball
BU - She's out
Coach (me) - who's call is this??
PU - Whatever BU says
Defensive coach - Gotta slide, Gotta slide

What are guidelines here? Fact is, some girls won't slide (this was a big kid with bad knees). If they don't slide, should any contact be considered a "crash" and an out.

In Fed, doesn't the catcher have to actually be in possession of the ball to block the plate.

A - the rule does not have the words "about to receive" in it. If the defender has the ball, and the runner initiates contact (other than a slide) the runner is out for interference. If the defender does not have the ball and the runner initiates contact, the call is obstruction.

B - you are mixing ASA and NFHS rules. ASA never had "about to receive" in its crash rule; NFHS had it included wrongly in 2005; corrected in 2006. Also NFHS uses the word malicious to indicate forcefull contact; ASA uses flagrant.

C - the word crash simply means contact. As noted in A, contact may be called interference, or obstruction. If contact is forcefull (malicious or flagrant), then ejection follows.

D - "In Fed, doesn't the catcher actually have to be in possession of the ball to block the plate?" Yes, and in ASA also. But that moves us into a discussion about Obstruction rules. Here we are talking about contact - legal or illegal, part of the game level or malicious level.

E - the leader of your association is probably an elected position. Popular, yes. But not necessarily a qualified umpire. And it doesn't mean that he is not a jerk - which he indicated in your game.

Never never never overule a partner's call. Period!

WMB

A - the rule does not have the words "about to receive" in it. If the defender has the ball, and the runner initiates contact (other than a slide) the runner is out for interference. If the defender does not have the ball and the runner initiates contact, the call is obstruction.


Thanks W Mich, my ASA rulebook is 2002, but I'm fairly certain the rule addresses "about to receive", or some other type of wording related to in the act of making a catch, etc.

Has this rule changed, or do you have the actual rule?

wrt "BU gets involved (without being asked-he's head of our association) after coach says "she's gotta slide" and calls the out."

1) As WMB said, one ump can NOT overrule another's call. Didn't we say that at least 10 times this season?

2) An ump should not accede to another just because of office or rank.

3) As long as the contact didn't cause the miss - no call.

4) The BU needs to read my signature line.

Let's say the catcher has the ball and is up the line and when she reaches to tag the runner there is contact and the ball falls out. I rule incidental contact and call the runner safe. The only contact was between runner's shoulder where the catcher reached out to tag her. If the runner runs into the catcher I call interference, but if a tag is being made and the only contact results from the tag I do not see obstruction or interference, just a dropped ball.

You got it.

Sometimes a newer umpire can be intimidated into letting a higher ranking umpire make the wrong call, which is evident in this case. I think I have a lead on the BU's identity. He is that much hated "the Other Umpire."

ASA never had "about to receive" in its crash rule

Until recently, ASA had "about to receive" in a POE and "about to catch a thrown ball" in the actual crash rule. The rather odd definition was "the ball is between the fielder and the runner."

the word crash simply means contact

This interpretation is new to me.

In 2002 “about to receive” was in there. In 2006 it is not. A fielder is not protected if she has not yet received the ball. There is no requirement for the runner to slide, only to avoid malicious or flagrant contact. The runner cannot intentionally interfere, i.e. reach out and knock the thrown ball out of the air. But short of something like that this is not interference.

And I don’t care who BU is in the association, if he comes in and overrules my call in earshot of coaches as this thread implies, I have worked my last game with him.

to avoid malicious or flagrant contact

I don't believe ASA uses malicious anywhere. It does use flagrant, in both 8-7-Q and POE #14:

"If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender will be ejected."

So ejection for a crash is not automatic.

To me, a crash is an actual crash, not merely contact. Unfortunately, umpires differ greatly in how they call such plays.

I believe that ASA's crash rule was instituted in 1980 or 1981. I remember clearly that before the change, it was pretty much as in MLB, with runners feeling obliged to crash to break the ball loose, especially (obviously) at home.

Crash, smash, bump, collide, contact, run into - what difference does it matter? The rules only call the runner out if she stays on her feet and makes the above type of contact with a defender that has the ball and is attempting make a play on the runner. But if you judge the crash, smalsh, bump, collide, or contact to be flagrant (ASA) or malicious (NFHS) then you add an additional penalty of ejection.

You are right, the crash rule showed up in the early 80's. But have you read that old rule. It reads: "When a defensive player has the ball and is waiting for the runner and the runner remains on his feet and deliberately, with great force, crashes into the defensive player, the runner is to be decalared out. Deliberately? With great force? Then what the hell is flagrant? (which earned an ejection in '82) Still sounds like the old wild west days!

In '94 the words deliberately and with great force were finally removed. And the words "about to receive a thrown ball" added. That was the "crash" rule that you knew for the next ten years.

In 2004 ASA removed "about to receive" from its obstruction definition. But it failed to remove those words from the "crash" rule (8-8.Q). So for one year ASA umpires had the absurb situation where a fielder obstructed a runner, but if you had a "crash" (smash, bump, collide, contact) the runner could be called out for interference. In 2005 ASA innocuously slipped in the change by removing "about to receive" from 8-8.Q.

NFHS then made the same damn dumb mistake. They followed ASA and changed their obstruction rule in 2005, but failed to fix the "crash" rule (8-6.14). That was fixed in 2006.

Today, in both codes I think it is fair to state that if a runner stays on her feet and makes contact with a defender, then:

a) if the defender does not have the ball the call is obstruction,
b) if the defender has the ball the call is interference and runner is out,
c) in either case if the contact is judged to be flagrant or malicious, the runner is ejected.

Understand that in b) we are talking about the runner initiating the contact. If the defender has the ball and she initiates the contact attempting to tag the runner or get the out, then that contact is legal. If she hangs on to the balll, call the out. If she loses the ball, call safe.

WMB

The only criteria I use in determining whether a player stays or goes is whether s/he could have avoided or attempted to avoid the contact.

If the runner does anything to give me the impression they see the opponent and is trying to avoid or soften the impact, they will receive the benefit of doubt.

If a runner never breaks stride or makes no effort to check up or avoid a collision, the player is done for the game.

The definition of the only FP player ejections I've been involved with, both in youth ball, both were runners diving headfirst into catchers.

I was gong to ask about a legal slide in "b", but then I reread your "stays on her feet " wording and thought it was worth expanding to "anything but a legal slide".

If the ASA rulesmakers mean simply contact, they should use a word other than crash. Perhaps contact would be a good choice.

I agree that an attempt to slow down, avoid, soften the impact, etc., gets the benefit of the doubt.

deliberately, with great force, crashes into the defensive player

This was indeed the old rule. As I remember, ASA removed deliberately because such a judgment required the umpire to divine what was in the runner's mind. They removed with great force as redundant, since crash implies great force.