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 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.

[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.

[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.