What's the call and rule reference (ASA)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

Mike...I simply asked a queston based on the description of the play. I didn't dismiss the call...just provided something else to consider.

This is to what I am referring:

If the movement of the catcher caused the collision, I would not apply this rule and play on.

8.7.Q makes no mention of intent (you know that, just sayin') nor what causes to collision though there is the need for some level of consideration.

It isn't as if the catcher went charging up the line at the runner, but stepped into a defensive position of the plate that was in the runner's path. A defender with the ball is allowed, actually expected to defend the base.

I'm simply stating that the catcher is the one who moved toward the runner that may or may not have caused the collision is not cause to not make the call.

[MD Longhorn]

I hear you two... but I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard of a play where that rule was used on anything but a catcher waiting with the ball. I'm having trouble envisioning a play where the catcher is moving toward the path of the runner (at least partly the reason for the collision) and 8.7.q was the call. I've seen LOTS where the runner reacted and was then called for MC. I've seen lots where the fielder led with the ball/glove and tagged an upright runner and the ball came out (NOT interference).

I can't recall one where the fielder moved toward or into the runners path and tagged an upright runner, and the ball went flying - and an umpire called INT.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Wait... you said, "The ball pops out. I kill the play and call the runner out for the contact."

Then you said you didn't have MC.

So why did you call the runner out, and why did you kill the play. If you don't have MC, you have a runner that's safe at home.

There's something I'm obviously not following here.

The reason is simple. I, in my opinion think there is a distinction in the rules between MC and running into a fielder with the ball, causing a collision which knocks the ball out. To me MC means you intentionally do something to create the contact outside of the normal playing action of the game, such as lower a shoulder into the fielder, raising an elbow into the runner, or something else designed to create additional (and potentially dangerous contact) between a runner and a fielder. In this case the runner was running in from 3rd, but just kept running with no attempt to avoid the contact with a fielder clearly in possession of the ball well before the runner arrived.

The way I read the rule does not say you only can kill the play if you rule the contact to be MC. You can only ejected the player if you deem the contact to be MC.

Think of it this way. A runner running in who intentionally swipes the arm down across a fielders glove to dislodge the ball. Would you rule that MC? I would say most people would say no, but the out would be called right.

[chapmaja]

Had another play at the plate tonight that almost resulted in an ejection. Similar situation, with a runner coming home and the throw easily beats the runner to the plate. F1 (covering home since it's Co-Rec) catches the ball and is standing slightly in front of the plate, but reaches to apply the tag. The runner continues running in a straight line and runs through the tag causing F1 to spin about half way around and drop the ball.

What's the call on this. The runner made no attempt to dislodge the ball and the only contact between the runner and F1 was with the arm and glove of F1 during the tag attempt.

My ruling was ................. eventually safe, since the runner never actually touched the plate. F1 was so upset arguing that he never listened to the bench telling him I think the runner missed the plate.

I did not deem the act of the runner to be interference because it was simply contact while a tag was being applied to the runner. This is different then the OP in which the contact was not just with the tagging portion of the player, but a body to body avoidable collision.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is to what I am referring:

If the movement of the catcher caused the collision, I would not apply this rule and play on.

8.7.Q makes no mention of intent (you know that, just sayin') nor what causes to collision though there is the need for some level of consideration.

It isn't as if the catcher went charging up the line at the runner, but stepped into a defensive position of the plate that was in the runner's path. A defender with the ball is allowed, actually expected to defend the base.

I'm simply stating that the catcher is the one who moved toward the runner that may or may not have caused the collision is not cause to not make the call.

I think you have to look at it similar to a block/charge in basketball. If the fielder has possession of the ball and is in "defensive position", even if they are moving, you have a foul on the offense for the contact.

In the event the offensive player has established their path to the plate and the defensive player steps in so late that the offensive player can not react to the movement of the defensive player, you are more likely going to have a crash and no call, in my opinion, unless something else happens to dictate MC be called.

[chapmaja]

One more thing. In the OP, the cause of the contact was clearly the runner, coming full speed at the plate and not making any attempt to avoid contact with the catcher who already had the ball. Yes the catcher took one step towards the runner coming in, but it wasn't a full running step and they collided. It was a step getting in front of the plate so the runner could not score before the runner was tagged out. The tag attempt was basically pushing the glove about a foot in front of her so the runner would run into it. It wasn't really a tag attempt as we think of in competitive softball. This was, after all, Co-WRECK.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I think you have to look at it similar to a block/charge in basketball. If the fielder has possession of the ball and is in "defensive position", even if they are moving, you have a foul on the offense for the contact.

In the event the offensive player has established their path to the plate and the defensive player steps in so late that the offensive player can not react to the movement of the defensive player, you are more likely going to have a crash and no call, in my opinion, unless something else happens to dictate MC be called.

No, I don't, this isn't basketball. I just need to look at the rule book and the applicable interpretations.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

One more thing. In the OP, the cause of the contact was clearly the runner, coming full speed at the plate and not making any attempt to avoid contact with the catcher who already had the ball. Yes the catcher took one step towards the runner coming in, but it wasn't a full running step and they collided. It was a step getting in front of the plate so the runner could not score before the runner was tagged out. The tag attempt was basically pushing the glove about a foot in front of her so the runner would run into it. It wasn't really a tag attempt as we think of in competitive softball. This was, after all, Co-WRECK.

A block/charge is a block if the defender is moving forward.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

A block/charge is a block if the defender is moving forward.

Thus I said similar, to not the same as.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Thus I said similar, to not the same as.

Good thing this thread is about umpiring a softball game, then.