Legal touching of home plate?
 

R1 is on third running home on a ground ball by B3 to second base. Catcher is in process of fielding throw from 2nd baseman and has left foot on plate. Runner R1 steps on the catchers’ foot that is touching the plate, no other part of the runners body comes in contact with home plate. Did she legally touch home plate? Or did the catchers’ foot prohibit her from touching the plate?

The umpire made no signal. The runner R1 attempted to retouch home plate and was tagged out. At this point the umpire called R1 out.

So the catcher already had the ball when R1 stepped on her foot?

Sounds like the catcher had a right to be there, and it sounds like R1 didn't touch home plate the first time around.

Catcher did not have possession of the ball. The ball was in flight to the catcher.

What ruleset? ASA? USSSA? NFHS?

Asa

If the runners foot was on top of F2's foot on top of the plate.......I am going to assume that some part of the runners foot touched the plate.

Joel

I would say it all depends. We've seen plenty of players slide into a base that a fielder blocks with their foot.

It's up to the judgment of the umpire to determine whether the foot touched the plate or base.

I think many umpires would do the same ("see" the touch or assume the touch of the plate) ;)

However, aftrer further clarification (ASA, F2 did not have the ball), sounds like an obstruction call anyway...

Exactly what I was getting at.

Different scenario........I know I have been taught at either a State NFHS or ASA National clinic that on a play at first where the BR steps on F3's foot while runner through the base......assume that some part of the BR's foot also touched the base.

I think Walt Sparks was the clinician.....

Joel

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

Me either.....not a safe way to play the position. I had two daughters that played a considerable amount of first over the years........I know I never taught that. I don't recall either of them ever having a significant issue at first either.

If I recall, this question came up with regards to the correct way to handle if a BR who beat the throw, but missed 1st while running through. Someone brought up stepping on the fielders foot and would you handle it the same.

That is when the discussion warped into the scenario I cited.

Joel

ASA rules: If the catcher did not have possesion of the ball, then it is obstruction, the runner will be ruled safe when you apply it.

Quite possibly.......but that would be moot since I had the runner touching the plate.......:cool:

Joel

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.

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

Unless you saw some part of her foot touch the plate;);)

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

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

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.:D

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.

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..........:D

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.........:cool:

Joel