Mob at home plate?
 

An interesting sequence of pictures for your review. My crappy seats didn't allow me to see the play so I can't give you guys any additional info that you cant' glean from the pictures other than that the collision jarred the ball loose and it went to the backstop. There was no obstruction nor UC called on the play.

In one of the shots you can see the mob scene at home where the offense is telling runner to touch the plate. You think Blue had enough help to make the call?

SASports.com - South Texas Best in High School Sports and Scores

Not having been there and lacking a video, I really could not make a definitive decision, but my perception of what happened based solely on the photos, I'm ruling the runner out.

If the catcher had possession of the ball prior to the crash, IMJ that is not a slide when the runner leading with a shoulder.

If the catcher does not have possession of the ball prior to the crash, it is OBS, but the runner may not be out of trouble yet if I believe it was intentional as opposed to tripping and falling forward.

Again, JMO, based on the still photos provided

The first picture looks more like Greco-Roman wrestling than softball.

Here is the picture 374 PhotoReflect - Antonio Morano Photography

and guess what: catcher has the ball.

Ejection.

Speaking ASA, unless everyone had tripped on her own feet and accidentally bumped into each other... Yep. Out. Ejected. And going through the sequence of pictures, it looks like the catcher sure got knocked for a loop. She spent a bit of time on the ground, and here's what appears to be a picture of her after the game. Yes, injuries will happen, but this just furthers my suspicion that this was a BS play.

I also saw this picture. Great positioning. :rolleyes:

They don't crouch like that in the majors but I have seen a lot of major league umps at that angle. Saw TS at the angle yesterday too when runner was rounding 3rd base.

Blue, to be fair, that is a pic of the play just before the collision play. F2 has just caught a throw from outfield on a short fly.

On the play in question, base hit to center scored R1 and R2 is the colliding player. The throw was offline and up the 3rd base path.

That may be, but for that kind of contact, I'd probably still have an ejection for USC. If the catcher had the ball before the collision, I'd also have an out. If I knew for certain the coach told her to do it, the coach is going with her.

End of the game or not, it appears to me that the kind of contact shown by these pictures do not belong in softball, and the consequences should not be ignored. Having seen the pictures of the catcher after the game only strengthens my belief that the contact wasn't just a bump, but more of a football-like tackle.

Video clip
 

Here is a video clip from San Antonio fox news.

Look for the title Smithson Valley going to state 5/30/09

I'm leaning for UC.


KABB News Video on Demand

Now having seen the play, I've definitely got an out and an ejection. The catcher had the ball, the runner was, in my judgment, not hindered (I didn't see her slow down or deviate), and the runner clearly lowered her shoulder to bowl the catcher over.

Total BS play, coach. Your girl should have been tossed.

Thanks for finding a video of the play. That is malicious contact and is covered by a the case book. Dead ball, out, and an ejection. Bad umpiring. No brainer.

Send the video to TASO so they can have a talk with the home plate umpire about what is malicious contact.

terrible... just terrible.
MC... bye bye
coach running down the sidelines almost into the play... bye bye.
players out of the dugout during live ball without helmet and almost into play... bye bye.
sigh.
it was so bad i had to watch the tape 15 times.
then the player is on the news saying she 'had" to run thru the catcher.
I know a lot happened really fast. but, the plate umpire... what a nice guy.

And that's exactly why we're told to slow our calls down. We need to take in everything that just happened and not rule on impulse. It seems like the PU allowed himself to either get caught up in the moment, or he simply wanted the game over.

Oh sh1t, did I just sound like a coach? Quick, someone spray me with Lysol!

This is one of those films that should be shown during rules clinics. WOW I bet this blue has been called by every commissioner and UIC from TASO. But, the bottom line here is we all need to understand that we are being recorded and although our judgment stands on the field, the film does not lie.

I wouldn't doubt that this umpire had two words rattling around in his head and they are "train" and "wreck". Guarantee you guys in Texas hear this more than once.

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

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

more informed
 

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!

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.

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

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

Through the catcher? No. Bad option.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.).

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :o

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.

Got it now. Thanks for the education, Scott. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. ;)

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

The play calls itself.


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

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

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

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

Dave you are ejected.:D

Surround each statement you want to quote with the quote tags.

For example:

The above block of text will give you:

Thanks, Welpe.

Ron

No problem! I slightly edited my post, if that helps you any. :)

Oh noes! I wuz ejectid!

I can haz forfit?

Looking at the other issues in this video, what do you do (if anything) with the two base coaches and what looks to be half the dugout surrounding the plate?

I don't mind them being excited on an important score. As long as all players had helmets on, I'm not penalizing ... BUT I'm sure going to be alert for them to cause INT! :cool:

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.

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

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.....:cool:

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

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.

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......

INT - Dead Ball - Ejection
 

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.

Long Island Blue
 

Nice job of making the argument. :cool:

Looking at the video, we all pretty much agree MC, runner out and ejected. It looked to me as if a trailing runner scored when the catcher was on her butt. So the end result would have been one run in, one out and an ejection, and runner returned to last base touched (score then 1-0). That is as it should have been called. But can you imagine the HSS that would have ensued if that was the call made? The umpire crew would have been roasted. "Let the girls decide the game." would have been the mantra of the media and the parents. And if Sally-ram-jet was ejected would she be allowed to play in the next game? It would be interesting to know what the local umpires think of all this who-haa. I guess the little girls are tougher in Texas.

Interesting, in the baseball side of this forum is a video about a brawl during a Texas High School playoff game. Do they actually enforce the NFHS rules in Texas? Because looking at these two videos it sure don't look like they do to me.

HSS = Horizontal S**T Strom, you can't hide from an HSS.