catcher take down

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I know we've discussed all the possible runner/fielder plays before, but please save me a long search and opine about this.

Runners at 3rd, 2nd; fly ball to center. Both runners tag, throw comes home.
R1 upright beats the throw, but slips on plate and goes feet first past the plate into the catcher who goes down.
R2 about 2/3 of the way to 3rd, but catcher is flat on the ground and can't throw.

Isn't there interference with the very possible play at 3rd on R2?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Isn't there interference with the very possible play at 3rd on R2?

Where is the act of interference by the runner?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where is the act of interference by the runner?

goes feet first past the plate into the catcher who goes down.
R2 about 2/3 of the way to 3rd, but catcher is flat on the ground and can't throw.

[wadeintothem]

For there to be (Crash) interference, the runner would have had to remain upright.

this is more like an unintentional slide.

Are you looking for a different type of INT on this?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

goes feet first past the plate into the catcher who goes down.
R2 about 2/3 of the way to 3rd, but catcher is flat on the ground and can't throw.

Still looking for an act of interference.

What the hell is the catcher doing somewhere they never should have been?

If the player came in sliding and went past the plate, the same would have happened. You cannot expect a runner to slow down and place themself in a position to be put out just so they do not accidently run/slide into a player out of position.

Now, if the catcher was out in front of the plate and was swept by the runner, INT is quite possible. But simply slipping on the plate....

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What the hell is the catcher doing somewhere they never should have been?

Why "never should have been", when covering the plate on the throw home trying to get R1?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If the player came in sliding and went past the plate, the same would have happened. You cannot expect a runner to slow down and place themself in a position to be put out just so they do not accidently run/slide into a player out of position.

The runner went into the catcher, regardless of sliding or not, accidently or not. How is the catcher out of position?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Now, if the catcher was out in front of the plate and was swept by the runner, INT is quite possible. But simply slipping on the plate....

Why does which side of the plate matter?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Why "never should have been", when covering the plate on the throw home trying to get R1?

The runner went into the catcher, regardless of sliding or not, accidently or not. How is the catcher out of position?

You are talking about the back half of the LH batter's box. That is not where a catcher taking a throw from the center of the field (or anywhere else, for that matter) should be. Even if the throw was off, that shouldn't draw the catcher to a spot behind the plate.

Why does which side of the plate matter?

Taking out a catcher standing in front of the plate would mean that the runner was going for the player, not the plate.

"Front of the plate" refers to an area in fair territory toward the pitcher's plate.

[wadeintothem]

Cecil you are avoiding the issue all together IMO. All that other crap dont matter... batter box, where the catcher is standing and all this bs.

What interference rule are you trying to enforce?

Once we know that we can pick apart your argument..

Just because there is contact between the offense and defense doesnt mean there is interference or obstruction, you need to have a rule to support a call.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

How is the catcher out of position?

You don't cover home plate by standing behind it.