Mob at home plate?

[ronald]

I got this from the Fed Interpreter for MA.

Ron:

I can't tell from the video exactly where the ball was when the runner clobbered the catcher.

If the catcher actually had the ball, the catcher is not guilty of obstruction but the runner is guilty of a malicious collision. She is out and should be ejected.

If the catcher did not have possession of the ball, the catcher is guilty of obstruction. However, when malicious contact occurs, it supersedes the obstruction and the runner is out and should be ejected.

How did you see it?

That I have already stated.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I encourage it in football and hockey, though.

I like a good hockey game too, but the No Hitting League wants to protect its players...

[topper]

Originally Posted by ronald

I got this from the Fed Interpreter for MA.

Now you've switched states on me. I thought Maryland's Fed Judgment Interpreter was the man to see. Now you say Massachusetts. Do I need to book an additional flight or are they within reasonable driving distance of each other? Or, are they the same person? Please advise.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Now you've switched states on me. I thought Maryland's Fed Judgment Interpreter was the man to see. Now you say Massachusetts. Do I need to book an additional flight or are they within reasonable driving distance of each other? Or, are they the same person? Please advise.

He's near DC and you know in that area, the only "truth" is whatever is needed to fit at the time.

I'm sure Ron meant MD. But then again, you just never know.....

[azbigdawg]

surprised to see this play still being discussed....

[ronald]

Yup, I meant MD. When I typed, I took a double take but kept it. Thought it was Maryland. Been a few years since I had to write MD.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

surprised to see this play still being discussed....

I think it raised a bunch of emotions to see some poor high school girl getting plowed into without any repercussions.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I think it raised a bunch of emotions to see some poor high school girl getting plowed into without any repercussions.

It WAS a surprising play. I would LOVE to know what the PU was (or wasnt) thinking......

[LIUmp]

What are the runner's LEGAL options in that play....

Go back to third.

Jump over the catcher.

Slide LEGALLY into the tag.

Avoid the tag and go around the catcher to the plate.

The runner did not do any of the four. In order to rule obstruction, as was stated, the runner needed to have change course in some way. She did not.

Softball is a game that is set up for collisions. Runners run on basepaths and fielders are set up to field a ball that crosses those paths.

However, a malicious (had to go THROUGH the catcher) head first dive to knock the ball loose is ILLEGAL and interference should be ruled.

Even if you want to call obstruction on the catcher, (far fetched because runner did NOT alter her course to the plate, but still) interference overrides it. Obstruction is ignored and runner is out.

Yes, the play happened fast. But gather yourself, and if you must, call time and talk to your partner to talk about the play .. and replay it in your mind.