Got anything #2 - Page 2

Dakota · #16 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 11:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MGKBLUE

I agree that this is likely nothing as it would appear the the runner did not show anything that would indicate that she was hindered or impended until F2 had possession of the ball and applied the possible tag.

The only time I would be OBS would be if the runner, slowed down because F2 was blocking the plate and such change in speed cannot be determined from the photographs.

My thoughts, too. It is not obstruction merely because of F2's position, although the PU should be thinking and looking for it based on F2's position. We can't judge OBS based on these photos, but it likely WAS obstruction, and it was NOT likely crash interference. I base this on the runner's position in #2, where she is apparently trying to protect herself, which makes it likely she also slowed down. But, we can't know that from the pics.

What was actually called?

bkbjones · #17 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 12:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

What was actually called?

The game on account of rain. Welcome to Seattle!

WestMichBlue · #18 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

but it likely WAS obstruction, and it was NOT likely crash interference. I base this on the runner's position in #2, where she is apparently trying to protect herself, which makes it likely she also slowed down.

Second the motion!

I don't think there is any question that F2 stepped into the runner's path without the ball. Should be a clear obstruction call.

The only issue (which cannot be resolved by these pics) is did she step in too late for runner to react and avoid the collison. If that is true, than no interference call and award the runner home.

WMB

Steve M · #19 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota

At least he's not wearing shorts...

Tom,
This might be more information than I needed to know

qcumpire · #20 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 06:51pm

First of all he's out of position. He needs to get on the other side of the plate.

As for a possible obstruction call, it's tough to tell with the still pictures. Just her being in the baseline without the ball doesn't make it obstruction. If the runner hesitated or changed her path any I've got obstruction. If not, I've got an out on the tag.

wadeintothem · #21 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 08:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Second the motion!

I don't think there is any question that F2 stepped into the runner's path without the ball. Should be a clear obstruction call.

The only issue (which cannot be resolved by these pics) is did she step in too late for runner to react and avoid the collison. If that is true, than no interference call and award the runner home.

WMB

I know what you are saying in premise.

This is a close play at the plate.

That runner should be in the dirt.

I have little to no mercy for crappy baserunning. Obviously, this is not enough for malicious.. but if you remain standing and crash into the fielder, you are out for INT.

From what I see in the pics, I would likely rule out for crash interference.

If I saw the play and it just wasnt too bad and I didnt have OBS, I would rule her out on the tag.

I would not protect her from her horrible base running. As pic 3 indicates, there was clearly some level of impact.

DB out.

scroobs · #22 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 20, 2008, 11:10pm

It looks like the catcher gave the runner some of the back of the plate. The runner seems to be running to that area. Ball and runner are getting there at the same time from what i see. I'd have a train wreck, and a tag out in this situation. Not sure why the runner didn't slide to the back corner of the plate, but i assume that she didn't know that the ball was coming and didn't her direction from her coach to slide. I wouldn't be surprised what this umpire would call, but likely he would just call safe or out because he clearly looks clueless...

IRISHMAFIA · #23 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 08:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by scroobs

It looks like the catcher gave the runner some of the back of the plate. The runner seems to be running to that area. Ball and runner are getting there at the same time from what i see. I'd have a train wreck, and a tag out in this situation. .

You're kidding, right? Since when did 'base availability' dictate the runner's path?

Quote:

Not sure why the runner didn't slide to the back corner of the plate, but i assume that she didn't know that the ball was coming and didn't her direction from her coach to slide. I wouldn't be surprised what this umpire would call, but likely he would just call safe or out because he clearly looks clueless...

The runner doesn't have to slide and failure to do so is not reason to determine a safe/out call.

CecilOne · #24 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 09:25am

Looks like you mostly agree with what I said yesterday:
"(A) "picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride ". If she did, clearly OBS.
(B) "hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 ". If so, and not (A), out."

What actually happened? Is it because of something we haven't seen?

Dakota · #25 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 09:47am

Quote:

Originally Posted by scroobs

It looks like the catcher gave the runner some of the back of the plate.

How long will it take for the myth to die that if the defense "gives" a part of the base/plate they are OK?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scroobs

I wouldn't be surprised what this umpire would call, ...because he clearly looks clueless...

"Clearly looks clueless"??? OK, since it is so clear to you, I suppose you can explain why "clearly", too, right?

wadeintothem · #26 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The runner doesn't have to slide and failure to do so is not reason to determine a safe/out call.

The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

If she doesnt slide, she can give up, go around, fly over, or any number of things.. running into the catcher is not one of them.

I know you know the rule mike, but I dont think you should use (not that you do) lawyerese bs about sliding to over look crashes. We all know why the rule is written the way it is, we dont need to put our head in the sand and pretend otherwise and use it to overlook legit crashes resulting from horrible baserunning technique.

Dakota · #27 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 10:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

That's not what the rules says.

SRW · #28 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 10:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

What rule is this again? Which book? I can't seem to find it...

qcumpire · #29 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 11:53am

[QUOTE=wadeintothem]The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

If she doesnt slide, she can give up, go around, fly over, or any number of things.. running into the catcher is not one of them.

Ah...another of the great "Rule Myths".

IRISHMAFIA · #30 (**permalink**) Fri Mar 21, 2008, 12:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

But the runner is not out for not sliding. The runner is out for crashing into the fielder.

Quote:

If she doesnt slide, she can give up, go around, fly over, or any number of things.. running into the catcher is not one of them.

I know you know the rule mike, but I dont think you should use (not that you do) lawyerese bs about sliding to over look crashes.

Not possible. If the player is sliding, there cannot be a "crash".

Quote:

We all know why the rule is written the way it is, we dont need to put our head in the sand and pretend otherwise and use it to overlook legit crashes resulting from horrible baserunning technique.

And I did that where?