Legal touching of home plate?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Just as a matter of semantics...

You don't call the runner safe. Once the obstructed runner is tagged out prior to reaching their awarded base, you call a dead ball and make the award.

Why is this important? Well, if you just call "safe," the ball's still live when it shouldn't be.

You only kill the ball if, for some reason, the catcher proceeds to tag the runner - most of the time, this doesn't happen.

There's a lot more to this play that changes if you rule she didn't touch home and was obstructed. Consider the case where the throw doesn't beat her ... she's heading to the dugout, thinking she's safe. Play may proceed - and she might even make it completely to the dugout. You may have signalled obstruction and said it aloud. Are you going to make a point of pulling the player out of the dugout to touch home? How do you go about announcing your award without making it obvious you don't have her touching the plate.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've always wondered why any 1st baseman would even have their foot on the base.

Some 1st basemen aren't taught properly or are slow to learn..

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Just as a matter of semantics...

You don't call the runner safe. Once the obstructed runner is tagged out prior to reaching their awarded base, you call a dead ball and make the award.

Why is this important? Well, if you just call "safe," the ball's still live when it shouldn't be.

Unless you saw some part of her foot touch the plate

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You only kill the ball if, for some reason, the catcher proceeds to tag the runner - most of the time, this doesn't happen.

No, I'll only kill the ball if she's tagged out. If she's safe, I call safe.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

There's a lot more to this play that changes if you rule she didn't touch home and was obstructed. Consider the case where the throw doesn't beat her ... she's heading to the dugout, thinking she's safe. Play may proceed - and she might even make it completely to the dugout. You may have signalled obstruction and said it aloud. Are you going to make a point of pulling the player out of the dugout to touch home? How do you go about announcing your award without making it obvious you don't have her touching the plate.

It's no different than any other missed base. If she doesn't go back to touch the plate, she's subject to appeal. If she enters the dugout without touching the plate, that's on her coaches.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You only kill the ball if, for some reason, the catcher proceeds to tag the runner - most of the time, this doesn't happen.

There's a lot more to this play that changes if you rule she didn't touch home and was obstructed. Consider the case where the throw doesn't beat her ... she's heading to the dugout, thinking she's safe. Play may proceed - and she might even make it completely to the dugout. You may have signalled obstruction and said it aloud. Are you going to make a point of pulling the player out of the dugout to touch home? How do you go about announcing your award without making it obvious you don't have her touching the plate.

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Some 1st basemen aren't taught properly or are slow to learn..

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Unless you saw some part of her foot touch the plate

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

No, I'll only kill the ball if she's tagged out. If she's safe, I call safe.



It's no different than any other missed base. If she doesn't go back to touch the plate, she's subject to appeal. If she enters the dugout without touching the plate, that's on her coaches.

It is now truly a matter of semantics........in the OP, if the runner stepped on the foot of the catcher who had it on home plate......the runner touched the plate.

Have you all not been taught that any part of the ball that hits the black portion of the plate also hit the white. Same reasoning........

Argue obstruction, etal. all you want.....the runner was safe as soon as she crossed the plate. By my instructions (wished I knew where the notes were), stomping on the foot of F2 as she crossed is as good as touching. Now if you want to hijack the thread and talk about obstruction and missing the plate.....go ahead.

Joel

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

It is now truly a matter of semantics........in the OP, if the runner stepped on the foot of the catcher who had it on home plate......the runner touched the plate.

Have you all not been taught that any part of the ball that hits the black portion of the plate also hit the white. Same reasoning........

Argue obstruction, etal. all you want.....the runner was safe as soon as she crossed the plate. By my instructions (wished I knew where the notes were), stomping on the foot of F2 as she crossed is as good as touching. Now if you want to hijack the thread and talk about obstruction and missing the plate.....go ahead.

Joel

Let's be clear, though, Joel, the runner touching the fielder who is touching the plate is not the runner touching the plate, so if all the runner does is touch the fielder's foot, the runner has NOT touched the plate.

What you are saying is that, due to the human running motion (e.g. heel down, foot rocks forward, pushes off with the toes), it is so highly UNLIKELY that the runner would touch ONLY the fielder's foot, that the umpire SHOULD consider this as touching the plate.

At least, I think that is what you are saying. And, taking the technical way and ruling that the runner did not touch the plate is looking for trouble with something you could not possibly see with certainty.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Let's be clear, though, Joel, the runner touching the fielder who is touching the plate is not the runner touching the plate, so if all the runner does is touch the fielder's foot, the runner has NOT touched the plate.

What you are saying is that, due to the human running motion (e.g. heel down, foot rocks forward, pushes off with the toes), it is so highly UNLIKELY that the runner would touch ONLY the fielder's foot, that the umpire SHOULD consider this as touching the plate.

At least, I think that is what you are saying. And, taking the technical way and ruling that the runner did not touch the plate is looking for trouble with something you could not possibly see with certainty.

Well.......I am 99% sure that this came from an ASA NUS instructon (either through an NFHS clinic or ASA, I am not sure.....albiet several years ago)........if this is the way they wanted it called, that is the way it is going to be called.

In all honesty, all of my notes on my clinics and what not are not handy........I do remember that this all started from a BR missing 1st prior to F3 receiving the throw and warped into this very scenario...........

We discussed it much longer than it should have been.

Also, when a foot goes over another foot on the plate, are you ever going to be sure that the runners foot did not touch the plate.........I think that was the consensus. You have to remember too, that this was discussed over a 10-20 minute period in a clinic and not 12 plus hours on a message board.

I stick by my original statement.

Joel

[Steve M]

I'll drink to that, Joel. And with games where they are wearing metal spikes, kinda added "justification when F2 hops around claiming to have been spiked on top of the foot.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Let's be clear, though, Joel, the runner touching the fielder who is touching the plate is not the runner touching the plate, so if all the runner does is touch the fielder's foot, the runner has NOT touched the plate.

What you are saying is that, due to the human running motion (e.g. heel down, foot rocks forward, pushes off with the toes), it is so highly UNLIKELY that the runner would touch ONLY the fielder's foot, that the umpire SHOULD consider this as touching the plate.

At least, I think that is what you are saying. And, taking the technical way and ruling that the runner did not touch the plate is looking for trouble with something you could not possibly see with certainty.

There is also the question of how low the umpire is going to get to see whether any part of the runner's foot also touched the plate

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is also the question of how low the umpire is going to get to see whether any part of the runner's foot also touched the plate

Agreed, but if the fielder's foot is, say, completely covering the front edge of the plate and the runner trips on it, an umpire can make the statement that they clearly saw the runner miss home plate.

However, I'm now changing the scenario, so back to the OP.

I do like Joel's answer, but I don't want to be too absolute in the assessment that if the runner's foot stepped on the fielder's, some part of his/her foot stepped on the base/plate. If I'm dead sure there was ZERO contact, then I'm dead sure. If I'm not, then I'll argue that she touched the plate.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Agreed, but if the fielder's foot is, say, completely covering the front edge of the plate and the runner trips on it, an umpire can make the statement that they clearly saw the runner miss home plate.

However, I'm now changing the scenario, so back to the OP.

I do like Joel's answer, but I don't want to be too absolute in the assessment that if the runner's foot stepped on the fielder's, some part of his/her foot stepped on the base/plate. If I'm dead sure there was ZERO contact, then I'm dead sure. If I'm not, then I'll argue that she touched the plate.

This was either a Henry Pollard or Walt Sparks argument.......or maybe both.......I am having a hard time remembering back to 2003-2005 or so..........

I can absolutely see if the runner tripped and fell over the plate if F2 had their foot on the 3rd base side of the plate.......and you absolutely saw her/him not make the touch.........

But......that was not the scenario in the original post........

And to Steve........I did drink to that.........

Joel