Legal touching of home plate?

[Soco88]

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.

[NCASAUmp]

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.

[Soco88]

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

[NCASAUmp]

What ruleset? ASA? USSSA? NFHS?

[Soco88]

Asa

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by Soco88

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.

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

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 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...

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

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

Exactly what I was getting at.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Blue

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.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

[wyoump]

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.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

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...

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Exactly what I was getting at.

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

Joel

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wyoump

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.

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.