That may be, but last I heard, "trainwreck" doesn't apply to a runner lowering his/her shoulder and leveling a catcher that's holding the ball. Someone needs to explain that to this umpire.

At the same time, as far as I know, this umpire isn't here to explain or justify the call, so I don't want to be too harsh in my assessment.

I just said those are the two words we are going to hear. Surprised someone hasn't already raised the issue. Did not say it would be accurate or an valid excuse, just what the umpire may have been thinking.

great forum post
 

this is exactly why we need to get any training for these situations...only been doing this for 4 yrs and never yet had a train wreck like this...runners running into half minded fielders but nothing malicious...train wreck is right and thanks to all those veteran umps that post here...this will help me to identify potential ejection plays...that was alot to take in on real time...:eek:

And I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't seriously consider this as a valid reason. :)

But this is exactly what I was hoping to dispel with my previous post. What happened in the video is NOT what is known as a "trainwreck," this is a crash, which is malicious contact.

A trainwreck is when the ball, runner and fielder all arrive at the same time, and the players bump. No obstruction call, no interference call. Purely incidental. Everyone did what they were supposed to do, and, well, sh1t happens.

From ASA UIC clinic in 2006

SITUATION 13: B1 hits a grounder to F6 who fields the ball and makes an errant throw to F3, pulling F3 down the line towards home. B1 is running legally in the running lane and crashes into F3 a split second after F3 catches the throw. Both R1 and F3 fall to the ground and F3 tags R1 before reaching first base.

RULING: Since F3 had possession of the ball before contact and R1 had no time to alter their path before the collision, this is neither obstruction nor interference. This is what is commonly referred to as a “train wreck.” R1 is out on the tag.
Rule 8 Section 5B & Section 7B


This did not happen in the video. The catcher was on the line, the runner ran straight into the catcher who got the ball at least a split second before contact. The runner never slowed up, never moved to avoid the catcher. Cloverdale, I'm from Michigan: you have to represent better.:)

Whenever you see this play in the future, even if the catcher does not have the ball, the runner can not run through the defensive player. It is called malicious contact in Fed and flagrant contact in ASA. No ifs, and, or buts apply.

Train wreck happens when two objects (players in our situation) are going in two different directions and collide where there was no chance (at that precise moment) for the two objects to avoid each other (at that precise moment).

I believe the entire key to the criticism rendered on this play is that the runner made no attempt to check up or legally slide. Leading with the shoulder AND HEAD is just an indication (verified by the player) that her intent was to crash into the catcher.

If there was any indication the runner tried to avoid a direct collision, I think some of us would probably had seen a "train wreck" scenario, and maybe even OBS had there been an obvious deviation by the runner prior to the ball reaching the catcher.

Well put. Excellent wording. It is mine now too.:cool:;)

out!
 

Out and ejected from the game! No doubt in my mind!

The video leaves little doubt in my mind. Dead ball, out, ejection.

I definitely do not intend to impunge the integrity of this umpire but is but I wonder if that the umpire was trying to avoid ejecting a player in a playoff game?

For our Texas guys, how do you contend with the amount of power the coaches have in controlling who their officials are and making the tough call? I'm sure most have no problem making the right call but it is worth pondering I guess.

I can't speak for NFHS, but ASA is VERY clear on this one. Colliding with a defensive player who has possession of the ball is an out. If it's flagrant (which this definitely was), it's an ejection. No UIC in their right mind will go against you on this one, and if they did, I don't want to work for them.

I guess we all need to overlook the fact that the catcher was blocking the plate prior to possession of the ball? NFHS still requires possession right? I know I didn't work many HS games, but the girl was in front of the plate and did not move before or after making the catch. The hit was hard, the after game interview was VERY telling, but non the less, someone should mention the obstruction.

You missed the pre-season meeting. Not obstruction as runner did not alter path nor slow down and at the moment of contact, catcher had the ball. No obstruction per HDQRTs in Indianapolis, IN.

still can not have malicious contact. no overlook. no running over a player is allowed. go around.

Ronald's correct. What obstruction? The runner's action showed no evidence of being hindered or obstructed. There is no rule dictating where a defensive player can stand other than the catcher in the box and pitcher on the plate.

Mike,

Need to pm you about upcoming event.

Thanks, Ron