Bull of a catcher

[canump]

This past weekend I worked a playoff tournament for a rural minor girls league. We had a few hours to kill due to rain so started to swap war stories, so to speak. One of the guys was telling us about a tournament he worked, rural boys 16 and under.
He had a seen a catcher for one of the teams, as he said " A Bull of a catcher, 6'2" + or -, 220 plus pounds, rock solid " He said he saw the catcher nock over a runner at the plate during a crash football style where defensive lineman are crashing the offensive line. Oh ya catcher had the ball.
Well he had the plate in the gold game with same catcher so he sort of new what to expect. About the 5th inning there was a play at the plate, base hit to outfield runner from 2nd rounding 3rd and he knew what was about to occur. Low throw to plate, F2 catching ball in perfect position for slide and tag. No doubt ball was there before runner. F1 with full control of ball starts to stand up and drive forward in a perfect lineman charge, F1 even lowered his shoulder striking R1 fully in the chest just as R1 was starting to slide knocking him backwards, a football coach would have been quite proud apparently.
The ump said from his postion he had perfect view of F1's glove, never made contact with R1.
Here's what he called.
Obstruction, Dead ball, safe at the plate, then gives the heeve ho sign.
Out comes the OC screaming why, " Coach I didn't eject your runner, I ejected the catcher for unsportmanship, flagrant contact."
Then out came DC for his burst.
I know that this might be a HTBT play but with the description he gave me, and I've tried to cover everything he had told us in his words, can you guys/gals pass on your thoughts. I know that the rule book doesn't cover or have a rule for defensive flagrant contact but he said he used R10 and made ruling to cover his call on the play.
I have to get back to work here so any feedback would be appreciated on the info I provided.

RD

[Dholloway1962]

I don't know about the OBS call, also not sure if I would have had a dead ball. You changed from using F2 to F1 and I am assuming that was just a typo and you meant F2 the entire scenario.

Safe, because no tag was made should have been sufficient to justify the safe call. Then the ejection sounds like a no brainer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

I don't know about the OBS call, also not sure if I would have had a dead ball. You changed from using F2 to F1 and I am assuming that was just a typo and you meant F2 the entire scenario.

Safe, because no tag was made should have been sufficient to justify the safe call. Then the ejection sounds like a no brainer.

It reads to me as if the runner never made it to the plate due to the hit. I'm no rules guy for baseball, but I suspect you can't just call the runner safe here since he likely didn't touch the dish.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It reads to me as if the runner never made it to the plate due to the hit. I'm no rules guy for baseball, but I suspect you can't just call the runner safe here since he likely didn't touch the dish.

A catcher does that, and I am calling the runner safe. He touched it and if the DC appeals I am saying he touched it.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

A catcher does that, and I am calling the runner safe. He touched it and if the DC appeals I am saying he touched it.

I agree with safe, and then I toss the catcher.

[canump]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

I don't know about the OBS call, also not sure if I would have had a dead ball. You changed from using F2 to F1 and I am assuming that was just a typo and you meant F2 the entire scenario.

Safe, because no tag was made should have been sufficient to justify the safe call. Then the ejection sounds like a no brainer.

Your right that was a typo, sometimes my fingers don't type what my mind is thinking. On his obstuction call what I think he was thinking was since F2 did not extrend his glove to tag and just used his body maybe he thought there was some obstruction.

[AtlUmpSteve]

While it is true that the catcher impeded the runner from advancing, that isn't obstruction by a defender that has possession of the ball.

While whatever rulebook being used in that game may not define defensive flagrant or malicious contact, I seriously doubt any definition specifically excludes it. In the past few years (2007, I believe), NFHS Softball (at least) clarified in an editorial change that malicious contact could and should be applied to defensive players, not just offensive players.

[canump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

While it is true that the catcher impeded the runner from advancing, that isn't obstruction by a defender that has possession of the ball.

While whatever rulebook being used in that game may not define defensive flagrant or malicious contact, I seriously doubt any definition specifically excludes it. In the past few years (2007, I believe), NFHS Softball (at least) clarified in an editorial change that malicious contact could and should be applied to defensive players, not just offensive players.

I should have mentioned in the OP that this was under the CASA rule book up hear north of the border. I know most of the rules read the same as yours
with a few variations, "my rule book happens to be in my wife's car which is away at the cottage while I'm stuck here working" but some of your rules do clarify things more in it's wording.
Thanks to you all for your input.