Mob at home plate?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by 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.

I just watched the video again, and I see her arms extended forward, hands going straight for the chest/shoulder area of the catcher. That's not a defensive motion, that's the motion of someone trying to knock someone else over.

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[topper]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I just watched the video again, and I see her arms extended forward, hands going straight for the chest/shoulder area of the catcher. That's not a defensive motion, that's the motion of someone trying to knock someone else over.

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Fair enough. I would be interested to hear the PU's take. I'll have to ask some of the San Antonio folks about it.

[CajunNewBlue]

I'd like to know the opinions from the uppers on this play.... it looks just so nasty. its an ejection fest just waiting to happen.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I just watched the video again, and I see her arms extended forward, hands going straight for the chest/shoulder area of the catcher. That's not a defensive motion, that's the motion of someone trying to knock someone else over.

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this.

I'll be in your boat. The runner was not within range of touching the plate. If the catcher was not there, she may not have reached the plate. That means there is only one other thing she could possibly be doing and it wasn't tiptoeing through the tulips. Watch the catcher's head snap back. That was not done with anyone's hands or arms. NFL players are fined for hits like that.

What do you think that player would say if she was called out and ejected?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'll be in your boat. The runner was not within range of touching the plate. If the catcher was not there, she may not have reached the plate. That means there is only one other thing she could possibly be doing and it wasn't tiptoeing through the tulips. Watch the catcher's head snap back. That was not done with anyone's hands or arms. NFL players are fined for hits like that.

She did appear to be close enough to touch home plate with a simple roll over. However, aiming for the chest/shoulders doesn't help her case any, not to mention the fact that if she had enough time to react and reach forward, why didn't the rest of her body display any other avoidance behaviors like a stutter- or side-step? Her only reaction was to put her arms forward at the catcher's chest and push forward.

What do you think that player would say if she was called out and ejected?[/QUOTE]

If I were a betting man, I'd say her exact response would be, "but she was in the way!"


In the end, I don't think this play had any effect on the outcome of the game. The team won 3-0. I still feel badly for the catcher. I can't stand seeing someone get hit like that in softball.

I encourage it in football and hockey, though.

[ronald]

Get the case book, first of all. This is illegal contact in Federation.

If you can not see that this is illegal in Federation, come to Maryland's state meeting so the Maryland Federation Interpreter can set you straight.

[ronald]

I get in a pickle when people can not call a spade a spade. Blatantly obvious.

[ronald]

just looked at it again. runners knees hit first, then she levels the catcher with her hands. hello, what is going on here.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I encourage it in football and hockey, though.

I think I'd flag that if I saw it in a football game.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I think I'd flag that if I saw it in a football game.

Yeah, but I don't call either sport, so to hell with 'em.

Just kidding. I've seen what hits like that can lead to, and it's just cheap. Just cheap.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Just kidding. I've seen what hits like that can lead to, and it's just cheap. Just cheap.

And someone posted, oh, that was you now that I think of it, what that hit led to. She was wrapped as if shoulder was dislocated. I know cause I had mine wrapped just like that when it happened.

[topper]

Originally Posted by ronald

Get the case book, first of all. This is illegal contact in Federation.

So, your case book determines judgement for you? Interesting.

Originally Posted by ronald

If you can not see that this is illegal in Federation, come to Maryland's state meeting so the Maryland Federation Interpreter can set you straight.

Great, I've been meaning to make a pilgrimage to the Mecca of softball officiating that is Maryland and seek counsel from it's Federation Interpreter.

[NCASAUmp]

Fellas, fellas... Don't make me start ejecting people...

[ronald]

The play calls itself.


She bowled the catcher over. DB, out and go home.

Some umpires, not saying this one, are "chicken manure".

[ronald]

Originally Posted by topper

So, your case book determines judgement for you? Interesting.

You missed the intent of the reference to the casebook or ignored it.

Great, I've been meaning to make a pilgrimage to the Mecca of softball officiating that is Maryland and seek counsel from it's Federation Interpreter.

Well come on over, it's never to late to learn what malicious contact is.

How do you guys split the shaded boxes when you reply to someone? Thanks