Slide... Crash

[jmkupka]

Runner coming home, catcher (in possession of the ball) blocking the plate. Runner slides- maybe the cleats catch or something, I don't know- but she comes back up (unintentionally in my opinion) & they meet, hard enough to take out the catcher & send the ball rolling.
I have an out; without the crash, there's no dropped ball. No intent, so no ejection.

No question here, really... guess it's a HTBT situation, but just because she slid, she still didn't avoid the crash, so... right call?

[MD Longhorn]

What is she being called out for?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

No question here, really... guess it's a HTBT situation, but just because she slid, she still didn't avoid the crash, so... right call?

In ASA, the infraction requires the runner to remain on his/her feet (no attempt to slide whatsoever) and run into the fielder. It doesn't sound like that's what you had.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

In ASA, the infraction requires the runner to remain on his/her feet (no attempt to slide whatsoever) and run into the fielder. It doesn't sound like that's what you had.

What about players having to control their moves and bodies?
What about the runner being on her feet for the collison (if I read it correctly)?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about players having to control their moves and bodies?

I can't find that rule...

What about the runner being on her feet for the collison (if I read it correctly)?

In the OP, the player is not on their feet.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In the OP, the player is not on their feet.

Then I read it wrong. Or is it wrongly ?

[jmkupka]

To clarify a little, foot-first slide, her cleats grabbed the ground, brought her back to upright on her knees, where she met face-to-face with the catcher (also on her knees, set up for the tag), crash. Catcher sent beyond the plate, ball rolls away, runner ends up on all fours on the plate.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

To clarify a little, foot-first slide, her cleats grabbed the ground, brought her back to upright on her knees, where she met face-to-face with the catcher (also on her knees, set up for the tag), crash. Catcher sent beyond the plate, ball rolls away, runner ends up on all fours on the plate.

Then for sure I don't have a violation. She cannot be faulted for having her cleats catch something that aborts her slide and causes her to essentially start a tumble. If the catcher wasn't there, she undoubtedly would have landed face-first onto the ground. Also, when contact was made with the catcher, the runner was on her knees, not completely upright on her feet.

Again, a crash is when a runner simply fails to do anything and she runs straight-up into the catcher when the catcher has the ball and is making a tag. Your runner tried to execute a slide, and because of something that caught her feet, she catapulted into the catcher while on her knees. Play on.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Then for sure I don't have a violation. She cannot be faulted for having her cleats catch something that aborts her slide and causes her to essentially start a tumble. If the catcher wasn't there, she undoubtedly would have landed face-first onto the ground. Also, when contact was made with the catcher, the runner was on her knees, not completely upright on her feet.

Again, a crash is when a runner simply fails to do anything and she runs straight-up into the catcher when the catcher has the ball and is making a tag. Your runner tried to execute a slide, and because of something that caught her feet, she catapulted into the catcher while on her knees. Play on.

Stop! It's the catcher's fault? What does the possible result sans catcher have to do with the play?

Of course, the runner can be faulted for having here spikes catch something, SHE'S THE RUNNER! If she doesn't know how to slide, she shouldn't and if one knows how to slide, the spikes should never catch anything other than the base or defender.

Obviously, HTBT and from what I've read, this is nothing, but please stop trying to find justifying excuses for the players.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Stop! It's the catcher's fault? What does the possible result sans catcher have to do with the play?

I never faulted the catcher, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I said that if the catcher wasn't there, the runner would have continued forward and landed face-first. In fact from the description, she would have continued forward from her knees, never rising to her feet. There's no crash without a runner being on her feet.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Then for sure I don't have a violation. She cannot be faulted for having her cleats catch something that aborts her slide and causes her to essentially start a tumble. If the catcher wasn't there, she undoubtedly would have landed face-first onto the ground. Also, when contact was made with the catcher, the runner was on her knees, not completely upright on her feet.

Again, a crash is when a runner simply fails to do anything and she runs straight-up into the catcher when the catcher has the ball and is making a tag. Your runner tried to execute a slide, and because of something that caught her feet, she catapulted into the catcher while on her knees. Play on.

Not a violation, but your reasoning brings way too much inconsequential consideration into it. She's not out simply because she did not break a rule. We don't have to figure out what would have happened if something else hadn't happened - this is not an obstruction situation... This is simply a runner not doing anything that warrants an out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I never faulted the catcher, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I said that if the catcher wasn't there, the runner would have continued forward and landed face-first. In fact from the description, she would have continued forward from her knees, never rising to her feet. There's no crash without a runner being on her feet.

I kind of took it that way too. If you weren't saying that to fault the catcher ... then why did you mention the catcher at all. It doesn't matter what the runner would have or would not have done.

Also - you use "crash" like it's a term we should be looking for. "Crash" is not illegal (in fact, when it IS used properly, it really means a collision for which neither party is at fault --- kind of the opposite of what you're implying)

More precisely, there's no interference in this play.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Runner coming home, catcher (in possession of the ball) blocking the plate. Runner slides- maybe the cleats catch or something, I don't know- but she comes back up (unintentionally in my opinion) & they meet, hard enough to take out the catcher & send the ball rolling.
I have an out; without the crash, there's no dropped ball. No intent, so no ejection.

For the reasons MD pointed out, let's take out the word crash and the whole 'cleats catching thing' here.
I'm assuming at this point in the thread that you're in agreement (as am I) that there's no interference here on the part of the runner.

Being devil's advocate, and going back to the sitch....

Catcher in possession of the ball blocking the plate, runner slides, comes back up (IYO unintentionally), they meet hard enough to take out the catcher and send the ball rolling. "I have an out."

The ball is on the ground. We've established here that there was no interference on the part of the runner. OC comes out to argue the call. How do/would you handle the argument?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I kind of took it that way too. If you weren't saying that to fault the catcher ... then why did you mention the catcher at all. It doesn't matter what the runner would have or would not have done.

Also - you use "crash" like it's a term we should be looking for. "Crash" is not illegal (in fact, when it IS used properly, it really means a collision for which neither party is at fault --- kind of the opposite of what you're implying

I merely brought up the catcher to provide some illustrative explanation as to why the runner did nothing wrong here that would warrant an out called due to a crash. The criteria needed to judge a crash are that the runner remains on her feet and contacts the fielder while upright. If the catcher wasn't present, the runner would not have met them, that's all. I'm not suggesting that you need to somehow factor in the catcher's presence to determine if there's a violation.

And the reason I use the word "crash" is because that is what is used in ASA 8-7Q and in RS #13. Yes, at the end of the day what we're really judging is whether or not the runner interferes with the fielder.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

For the reasons MD pointed out, let's take out the word crash and the whole 'cleats catching thing' here.
I'm assuming at this point in the thread that you're in agreement (as am I) that there's no interference here on the part of the runner.

Being devil's advocate, and going back to the sitch....

Catcher in possession of the ball blocking the plate, runner slides, comes back up (IYO unintentionally), they meet hard enough to take out the catcher and send the ball rolling. "I have an out."

The ball is on the ground. We've established here that there was no interference on the part of the runner. OC comes out to argue the call. How do/would you handle the argument?

My reasoning is that, while there is no "must slide", there is a slide, avoid, or surrender-whatever is needed to avoid a collision-that didn't happen here. Catcher had the ball, was waiting to apply the tag, and the collision took her out.
I misused the term "crash". I see "crash" as the unfortunate case of ball, fielder, and runner all meeting at the same time, and no INT or OBS is called.
At game speed, this was my rationale, and it's what I explained to the OC.