Still a troublesome play for me

[greymule]

This weekend I had the perfect example of the play that just won't go away for me.

FP 14u tournament. Bases loaded, 1 out, tie score late. Ground ball to F4, who throws home for the force.

Runner comes in standing up and runs into F2, who is standing up straight on home plate and reaching up the 3B line for the throw. It's definitely a bump, but it couldn't be characterized as a crash (both runner and F2 remained on their feet, and neither was knocked off balance). Almost simultaneous with the contact at home, the ball hits the runner's helmet and bounces away.

Naturally, the defensive coach wants interference.

But I think:

Crash? A bump is not a crash.
Did F2 have the ball? No.
Was the ball between F2 and the runner? Don't think so, since it hit the runner in the helmet (although F2 was reaching for it).
Was this the play the rulesmakers had in mind when they created the interference rule? No.

I know that many—maybe most—umpires would have called crash/interference on that play. I suspect that I would have heard less static if I had, too.

Coach says, "You mean she can just run into her like that?" My answer had to be yes, but I must say I didn't like saying so.

This is the play in the middle. The obvious crash is easy, and the play where the ball isn't there is easy. But this is the one I keep seeing.

[Dakota]

It's hard to tell the exact timing from a written description, but maybe this will help (ASA POE 13F)...

If the ball, runner, and defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact. ...

[CecilOne]

But doesn't the runner have the obligation or responsibility to avoid the collision, even if it is not interference? As in "slide, go around, jump over, etc."?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
But doesn't the runner have the obligation or responsibility to avoid the collision, even if it is not interference? As in "slide, go around, jump over, etc."?

Only if the conditions which allow the C to be there are met.

Other than that, I'm trying to visualize this play. If F4 threw from her normal position on the field and the ball hit the runner as she was touching the plate, the C must have already missed the ball UNLESS she was behind the runner's basepath. Then again, it sounds as if the C has no knowledge or experience in receiving a throw at the plate.

I believe this was probably a good "no call".

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
But doesn't the runner have the obligation or responsibility to avoid the collision, even if it is not interference? As in "slide, go around, jump over, etc."?

ASA - only if the defense has / is about to receive the ball. Of course, flagrant contact is USC, but that would be under the general USC rule (Rule 10-9C).

[greymule]

No way this was flagrant contact. And yes, F2 did not cover home properly. Instead of planting a foot on the plate and stretching out for the throw, she stood upright with both feet on the plate and reached out with her arm only.

Unfortunately for everyone, that's the way many FP players field the bases. And unfortunately, many runners simply will not slide. So as umpires, we often have to deal with the odd-looking play that stems from faulty fielding on the base and faulty running into the base.

The runner actually slowed down a moment before she bumped the catcher. In fact, if she had run hard and slid all the way, she would have beaten the ball easily.

Thanks for the responses, guys.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by greymule
... But I think:

Did F2 have the ball? No.
Was the ball between F2 and the runner? Don't think so, since it hit the runner in the helmet (although F2 was reaching for it).

From the rest of your description, I personally think it was "just a train wreck." From the two sentences noted above, you can always say, "Coach, your player was blocking the path but didn't have ball and was not immediately receiving the ball. I had obstruction, but that's a delayed dead ball that was no longer valid after the runner scored."

[WestMichBlue]

I'm with Dan all the way on this one. I saw obstruction when I read it the first time.

IMO, too many fielders are blocking the base when they have no right, or need to. Some of it is deliberate; much is simply inexperience or poor technique. The best way to stop it is for the Blues to start calling obstruction.

In my world, if you haven't got the ball, you don't belong in the basepath. Because I believe that "about to receive" is basically negated by the "ball is closer than the runner" interpretation, I fall back on my 3-step rule.
1. If ball reaches defender before the runner does, than legal to block.
2. If runner reaches defender before the ball does, obstruction.
3. If both get there at same time - train wreck and let the play run it's course.

In rule #1, if the defender has to right to block the path, then any contact by the runner, other than a legal slide, is interference. Even if it is accidental, or incidental contact, you have to protect the defender and call the interference. Otherwise you can have a dropped ball, or runner advancing on a defender that may be unable to make a secondary play. The automatic out and runners returned is a strong penalty to the offense and sends a message.

In rule #2, unless contact is vicious (malicious, intent to hurt, etc.) I will allow the contact and stay with obstruction. If coaches complain, the response is automatic: "teach your players to get their butts out of the basepath when they don't belong there!"

Rule #3 is the tough one. If you don't call obstruction or interference, then you are going to have one side screaming at you. If you let it go, and you have two players on the ground, and the ball rolling around, and the runners taking more bases, and the collision runner still hasn't made it to the base, and and and - what-ever happens after that is going to create a ruckus.

It is interesting that, on the play to 1B, if the ball gets there first you call OUT. If the runner gets there first, you call SAFE. And there is no TIE!

Maybe it should be the same on blocking the base. Call the I, or call the O, but don't just waffle and call it a wreck.

WMB

[greymule]

As we all know, many rec leagues ignorantly write into their rules a stipulation that a runner "must slide" on a "close play," whatever that is exactly. I think it is from this, as well as from some erroneous calls by overzealous umpires, that coaches and fans get the idea that any runner who collides with a fielder must be guilty of something.

As I remember, ASA inserted the crash rule in 1981 (or thereabouts). It was written specifically to prevent the play in which the throw beat the runner coming home, the catcher had the ball, and the runner felt obliged, from his baseball training, to try to dislodge the ball.

But the rule was certainly not written to prevent all collisions between runners and fielders.