Mob at home plate?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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 was thinking of TASO umpires working NFHS games, not ASA.

[cloverdale]

a poor represention of words ron...train wreck is different than mc....got that now...dont do asa but am joining this year...lots of things to think about...such as catcher postioning...runners lane to plate...ball arrival...and as others have posted...coach down the line and maybe team mates celebrating during live ball on the field...slowdown slowdown slowdown...oh boy!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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 was unaware that any coach has any control over umpires. Please clarify...

IF you strictly mean that they can choose their playoff umpires, which are the only ones they can choose in most areas, then who cares. Does that alter the way I umpire? Of course not. If they don't like a call I make and don't want me back for the next round, then big deal. There are other schools and games that request neutral umpires that need to be worked. Other than choosing them to work their playoff games, there is no control that any coaches have over the umpires here.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Hey, I called that like... 24 posts ago!

[Tru_in_Blu]

This is tough one for me. Some of you have mentioned that the runner did not alter her path, but she seemed to sense a close play coming up. The catcher was in the base path, significantly up the line from the plate. The runner did not alter her course, did not crash into the catcher while on her feet, could not jump over the catcher since the catcher wasn't prone.

Literally a split second before the catcher has the ball, the runner apparently has already decided to go into a goofy head first dive. While she didn't veer left or right, or jump, she did take an alternate path to HP.

Since the runner wasn't on her feet at the time of the crash, this may absolve her of MC per NFHS rules 8-6-14 She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Penalty follows.

2-35 is a bit less direct: "Malicious contact is an act that involves excessive force with an opponent."

So to me, MC would be a situation where the runner actually has time to recognize that the defensive player actually has the ball and is waiting to apply the tag, but yet the runner decides to try to bowl her over by running upright into the defender.

I didn't see that in this case.

As far as a wreck, if the catcher had been positioned out of the runner's path and then made an attempt to field the ball that was a bit off line, and then there was a collision, I'd say that qualifies.

NFHS 8-4-3-b, which I'm sure you're all familiar with:
Art 3 A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:

b. a fielder not in possession of the ball or not making an initial play on a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or BR who is legally running bases. Obstructed runners are still required to touch all bases in proper order, or they could be called out on a proper appeal by the defensive team. Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.

As mentioned, that PU had a lot going on during that play. We have the benefit of slow motion and stop action. But live, that was tough. When I see the catcher squatting on the foul line with a runner bearing down on her and the throw is coming in, simply stated she is not in possession of the ball. Yes, that split second later she does, but the runner wouldn't be able to see that or react. Had there been a call for OBS, I couldn't argue against it.

Ted

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Literally a split second before the catcher has the ball, the runner apparently has already decided to go into a goofy head first dive. While she didn't veer left or right, or jump, she did take an alternate path to HP.

Through the catcher? No. Bad option.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blue

Since the runner wasn't on her feet at the time of the crash, this may absolve her of MC per NFHS rules 8-6-14 She remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Penalty follows.

On her feet, in the air, doing cartwheels, it doesn't matter. She still intentionally collided with the catcher with a lowered shoulder. By her own admission ON TAPE, she wanted to go through her. I could see it in the video of the play, and she admitted to it afterward. Don't know what else you need.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

2-35 is a bit less direct: "Malicious contact is an act that involves excessive force with an opponent."

So to me, MC would be a situation where the runner actually has time to recognize that the defensive player actually has the ball and is waiting to apply the tag, but yet the runner decides to try to bowl her over by running upright into the defender.

I didn't see that in this case.

And the runner admitted to intentionally running into the catcher. As for excessive force, I resubmit this picture from after the game. Don't think it was excessive force? Tell that to her parents who now have to drag her to the doc's office because some idiot runner decided to go all Japanese Game Show on her.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

As far as a wreck, if the catcher had been positioned out of the runner's path and then made an attempt to field the ball that was a bit off line, and then there was a collision, I'd say that qualifies.

NFHS 8-4-3-b, which I'm sure you're all familiar with:
Art 3 A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:

b. a fielder not in possession of the ball or not making an initial play on a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or BR who is legally running bases. Obstructed runners are still required to touch all bases in proper order, or they could be called out on a proper appeal by the defensive team. Should an act of interference occur following any obstruction, enforcement of the interference penalty would have precedence.

And up until the point at which the catcher had the ball, I did not see the runner slow down or deviate. I would not have OBS.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

As mentioned, that PU had a lot going on during that play. We have the benefit of slow motion and stop action. But live, that was tough. When I see the catcher squatting on the foul line with a runner bearing down on her and the throw is coming in, simply stated she is not in possession of the ball. Yes, that split second later she does, but the runner wouldn't be able to see that or react. Had there been a call for OBS, I couldn't argue against it.

Ted

I never saw a slow motion version of this play, and I've got INT, MC, and an ejection.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Well Dave, the PU didn't have the benefit of post game interviews, photos of players in slings, or instant replay.

Do we all have MC, out, ejection if the runner just as forcefully slid feet first into the catcher? And after the game the runner said she was trying to kick the ball out of the glove, and photos of players on crutches, and instant replay, et al?

One of the things I've tried to work on this season is the OBS call. I do a lot of lower level girls games and can call it on almost every base hit out of the infield on F3. Most times, though, the BR are content to simply run through the bag, like their coaches always tell them. If they're going to 2B, it's from 15' beyond 1B.

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Well Dave, the PU didn't have the benefit of post game interviews, photos of players in slings, or instant replay.

And neither did we at the beginning of this thread and I believe the consensus was INT.

Do we all have MC, out, ejection if the runner just as forcefully slid feet first into the catcher? And after the game the runner said she was trying to kick the ball out of the glove, and photos of players on crutches, and instant replay, et al?

As long as it was a legal slide, not a problem since it is permitted, by rule. This was neither legal or a slide.

I'll go here again. I don't think anyone is pointing a finger at the umpire here, just voicing what each poster probably would have done in this circumstance. As I posted, he is probably thinking "train wreck". Would I like to know what he thinks now? Yeah, not for an argument, but to find out what he saw.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Well Dave, the PU didn't have the benefit of post game interviews, photos of players in slings, or instant replay.

Nor do I, but I've tossed out players for doing similar things that were more "subtle" than this (sliding into a bag with their foot at F4's knee-level, etc.).

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Do we all have MC, out, ejection if the runner just as forcefully slid feet first into the catcher?

No, because that's actually PART of the game.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

And after the game the runner said she was trying to kick the ball out of the glove, and photos of players on crutches, and instant replay, et al?

Of course not, because the runner didn't do anything flagrant enough to merit an ejection, unless she was obviously (and I do mean "obviously") trying to kick the fielder.

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

One of the things I've tried to work on this season is the OBS call. I do a lot of lower level girls games and can call it on almost every base hit out of the infield on F3. Most times, though, the BR are content to simply run through the bag, like their coaches always tell them. If they're going to 2B, it's from 15' beyond 1B.

Ted

It's good that you've got something specific to work on. That's the mark of a good umpire, and I do commend you for that. However, in this case, I think an OBS call would be a difficult sell, as I never saw any deviation by the runner before the ball was in the catcher's possession. And even if you could somehow justify OBS in this sitch, it's still trumped by the malicious contact. There's a clear-cut difference between the example you're mentioning (feet first sliding) and what happened in the game (lowering the shoulder and going head first). I used to be a volleyball player, and I know the difference between lowering yourself for a head-first slide (the EXACT same as a volleyball dive) and lowering yourself to pound another player into the ground.

[reccer]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I was unaware that any coach has any control over umpires. Please clarify...

IF you strictly mean that they can choose their playoff umpires, which are the only ones they can choose in most areas, then who cares. Does that alter the way I umpire? Of course not. If they don't like a call I make and don't want me back for the next round, then big deal. There are other schools and games that request neutral umpires that need to be worked. Other than choosing them to work their playoff games, there is no control that any coaches have over the umpires here.

Seems to me the ability of a coach to deny your getting to work his/her games is significant control over you. I admire Skahtboi's integrity, but he does live on the outskirts of the 4th largest metropolitan area in the country. I'm sure there are plenty of other playoff games he can work. I suspect this isn't the case in my part of Texas. Also be advised that the Smithson Valley (the blue offensive team in the video) is the regional power and always goes deep into the playoffs. If you want to work the 5A (our largest schools) playoffs in San Antonio, you will have to meet the approval of Coach Daigle.

To give you some local color, I have included a write-up on him from a year ago. He is an excellent softball coach, worthy of his accolades.

Maybe playoff assignments should be controlled by TASO and the coaches removed from the decision process?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from San Antonio newspaper)
She gnashes her teeth, almost as if she's ready to snarl. Her fists begin to tighten, causing her knuckles to turn white.

Before long, with bat in hand, Smithson Valley assistant Lisa Daigle's arms are swinging through the air.

And that's just the feisty 46-year-old while casually talking about softball, a game she has no problem admitting consumes the lives of both her and her husband, Rangers coach Wayne Daigle.

“I just love the game,” she says. “If you're passionate about something, it's a 24-hour deal — and it lives right there, all the time.”

She emphasizes the point with a strong punch to the chest.

“Ah!” she adds. “I love it! I love ball.”

It's a boisterous enthusiasm that is readily apparent during Smithson Valley games. The fist pumps, leg kicks and assortment of other gestures and bodily twists from the Daigles as they roam the baselines are as entertaining to watch as any coaching tandem in the area.

They will lead the Rangers (30-2) against La Joya in the Region IV-5A semifinals in a three-game series beginning at 7:30 tonight in Laredo.

It is Smithson Valley's ninth appearance in the regional semifinals in 11 years.

“The Daigles are a really fired-up bunch of coaches,” junior ace Bailey Watts said.

But the eccentric displays aren't for show.

The Daigles' fervor for the game — which has helped anchor their 22-year marriage — has been their trademark in establishing a fiery atmosphere inside Smithson Valley's dugout.

“That's how we coach,” said Wayne, 61. “When we came here 12 years ago, we didn't do anything different. If anything, because of the success that's come, we feed off it. We're even more about it.”

The approach has worked for the Daigles at all levels.

While playing for Wayne at Sam Houston State in the early 1980s, Lisa and her eventual husband won NAIA and NCAA Division II national championships together. Those championship rings were eventually melted down to form their wedding bands.

And while coaching together, they guided Smithson Valley to the Class 4A state championship in 2001, and also won American Fastpitch Association and National Pro Fastpitch national titles.

“Everybody's got something,” Wayne said. “Old cars, antiques — we're just both into softball.”

These days, with retirement looming closer in his 30th year of coaching, Wayne leaves most of the passionate displays to his wife. It's a role she's so good at that senior catcher Brittany Arredondo, a demonstrative player herself, calls Lisa the team's motivator.

“I like her little ‘Rah!' thing,” said Arredondo, mimicking her coach by flexing her arms inward and adding a few grunts for good measure.

“I have a little bit of that going.”

Such intensity was plainly evident in last week's third-round grudge match against Taft.

Leading 6-0 late in the contest, Lisa sprawled face-up on the dirt behind home plate following a tag at the plate that prevented the Rangers from increasing their lead.

She stayed there for nearly 15 seconds.

She remembered, after all, what had happened in last year's third-round matchup with Taft. The Raiders snatched the one-game playoff with a late rally that erased a four-run deficit in a single inning

Wayne acknowledges he and his wife's animated ways can rub some opponents the wrong way. But Taft coach Scott Libby is not among them.

“If you're not showing any disparagement to the other team while rooting your own team on, then you're doing your job as a coach to keep them fired up,” Libby said. “I see (Wayne) get on his team and root them on, but I can't say I've ever seen him act like he's doing anything against my team.”

Said Wayne: “Our detractors, I've heard them say, ‘It's all about the kids. It's not about you all.' We've never thought it was about us. It is about our kids.

“But that criticism doesn't bother us at all.”

As for the possibility the Daigles might someday become more subdued?

“The day that happens will be the day I get out,” Wayne said. “I'll be writing for a newspaper.”
THE DAIGLES FILE

•AGES: Wayne Daigle 61; Lisa Daigle 46

•YEARS MARRIED: 22

•YEARS AT SMITHSON VALLEY: 12

•DAIGLES' DOMINANCE: Smithson Valley has won 91 of its past 92 district games.

•COACHING HIGHLIGHTS: Wayne Daigle coached Sam Houston State to NAIA and NCAA Division II national championships, and led Nebraska to the national-title game. Together, Wayne and Lisa Daigle have coached Smithson Valley to a Class 4A state championship (2001), and also guided teams to national titles in American Fastpitch Association and National Pro Fastpitch.

•PLAYING HIGHLIGHTS: Lisa Daigle caught four national-championship games at three different levels (NAIA and NCAA Division II while at Sam Houston, NCAA Division I at Nebraska), winning two titles under her eventual husband.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I was unaware that any coach has any control over umpires. Please clarify...

IF you strictly mean that they can choose their playoff umpires, which are the only ones they can choose in most areas, then who cares.

That is what I was referring to. I was under the impression this was also the case in the regular season but perhaps it varies by area.

Again, I am just wondering because it is very different from how things are done here and it is not what I am used to.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That is what I was referring to. I was under the impression this was also the case in the regular season but perhaps it varies by area.

Again, I am just wondering because it is very different from how things are done here and it is not what I am used to.

No here, at least in my part of the state, the regular season is assigned by an assignor. A coach can scratch an umpire, but it seems to be a rare event during the season.

For post season play, they are submitted a list of all qualified umpires (those who have attended the required meetings/training to be eligible for post season), and from that a coach must submit a list of 6-10 umpires he/she most wants to work their playoff games, ranked in order of preference. Or, they have the option of going with neutral umpires who are assigned by the assignor of the chapter that both schools approach to supply the umpires.

So, I don't see that they have all that much control. But, that is just my opinion.

[Welpe]

Got it now. Thanks for the education, Scott.

[topper]

After watching the play several times, I'm not sure I can fault the PU for not judging MC. The runner’s arms are extended forward as to reach for the plate, no lowering of the shoulder as NCASAump has described. It looks like the catcher leaned forward right before the runner arrived which put her more in the path of the diving runner. I can't tell if the catcher had control of the ball, so can't determine INT or OBS, but based of what I saw I would not have had MC. As far as the comments after the game, they could be chalked up to after-the-fact bravado on the player's part and not what she was actually thinking as the play happened.

[RKBUmp]

If you come to the conclusion there is no MC, by the FED case book the play stands.

8-4-3, Situation E - A throw from F9 draws F2 into the base path of R1. In (a), the ball arrives just before R1 and F2 has it in her possession. Contact then occurs between F2 and R1, F2 drops the ball and R1 scores. In (b), contact occurs just prior to F2 catching the ball. In both cases, the contact is not malicious. Ruling: In (a), there is no obstruction or interference. This is viewed simpy as a collision. The run scores. In (b), F2 has commeted obstruction; R1 will be awarded the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction.