23 replies to this topic

[yawetag]

http://stlhighschoolsports.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlargePopup.asp?image=41120000&event=1446365&CategoryID=59562&pSlideshow=1&Slideshow=Stop#Image'

It's not as good as video, but what do you have? The story goes from photos 1 to 22.

[BigSimonia]

Assuming the ball is a thrown ball (which it looks like to me)

FED: - I've got obstruction - F5 is blocking the bag and does not have possession of the ball - but picture #4 leads me to believe there is MC, nullifying the obstruction - Runner's out

OBR: - It looks like F5 is in the immediate act of receiving the ball and can block the bag (no obstruction) - no MC in OBR, so Runner is safe

Assuming a batted ball:

FED: - I've got interference - Runner's out

OBR: - I've got interference - Runner's out

[yawetag]

but picture #4 leads me to believe there is MC, nullifying the obstruction - Runner's out

I'll shy away from MC. His arms are out because he's sliding into the base, not causing MC.

[Jimurray]

but picture #4 leads me to believe there is MC, nullifying the obstruction - Runner's out

I'll shy away from MC. His arms are out because he's sliding into the base, not causing MC.

A legal slide has to be on the ground. Obviously there is a transition period where the slide is not on the ground but this looks illegal so if no MC it's still an out for an illegal slide.

[johnnyg08]

His arms are out because he's sliding into the base, not causing MC.

Respectfully disagree Andrew. That being said, this is a still shot and not a video so it might look different in motion.

[yawetag]

A legal slide has to be on the ground. Obviously there is a transition period where the slide is not on the ground but this looks illegal so if no MC it's still an out for an illegal slide.

He's in the act of sliding. You can't force a runner to go immediately from their feet to their belly without some, as you call it, transistion period -- therefore, you can't bang him for an illegal slide at that point. In addition, he's sliding into the base, so how can it be illegal? What part of 2-32-2 makes this slide illegal?

I only brought up INT because it's obvious the DC is arguing with the umpires. His only argument could be that it's INT. However, I see nothing that would make it INT.

[Matt]

A legal slide has to be on the ground. Obviously there is a transition period where the slide is not on the ground but this looks illegal so if no MC it's still an out for an illegal slide.

So, what's illegal about it?

[BigSimonia]

but picture #4 leads me to believe there is MC, nullifying the obstruction - Runner's out

I'll shy away from MC. His arms are out because he's sliding into the base, not causing MC.

He's not sliding into the base - he's diving into F5's grill. Take a look at #4 and #5

[yawetag]

He's not sliding into the base - he's diving into F5's grill. Take a look at #4 and #5

It's probably F6 or F4. Photo 8 shows how close to the base both the fielder and runner were when contact was made. Assuming this was a stolen base (and the photos seem to indicate as such), I've got a fielder without possession of the ball in the path of a runner attempting to advance to a base. Therefore, I've got nothing close to INT.

To me, it's nothing.

[BigSimonia]

He's not sliding into the base - he's diving into F5's grill. Take a look at #4 and #5

It's probably F6 or F4. Photo 8 shows how close to the base both the fielder and runner were when contact was made. Assuming this was a stolen base (and the photos seem to indicate as such), I've got a fielder without possession of the ball in the path of a runner attempting to advance to a base. Therefore, I've got nothing close to INT.

To me, it's nothing.

If it's a batted ball it's interference. What leads you to believe that it's a stolen base (i.e., thrown ball). It could be either. And if they're playing OBR (I know it's 2 HS teams, just saying) he doesn't have to have possession of the ball - just be in the immediate act of fielding, which it appears to me, he is. Finally, no way this is not FED Malicious Contact.

[yawetag]

Finally, no way this is not FED Malicious Contact.

You're calling MC on a runner who is sliding head first into a base? You honestly believe a runner is attempting MC on a fielder by going at him head first? If you want to discuss INT or OBS, I'll entertain it. However, I can't imagine a situation where this trainwreck is anywhere close to MC.

[BigSimonia]

Finally, no way this is not FED Malicious Contact.

You're calling MC on a runner who is sliding head first into a base? You honestly believe a runner is attempting MC on a fielder by going at him head first? If you want to discuss INT or OBS, I'll entertain it. However, I can't imagine a situation where this trainwreck is anywhere close to MC.

Jeez - He's sliding head and hands first into the face of the fielder. Look at pictures 4-7, especially 7!. The fact that the bag is behind the fielder is immaterial. The runner has to avoid that kind of violent contact even if the fielder is improperly blocking (ie, obstructing) the bag. For FED it's a safety issue designed to avoid exactly the kind of contact depicted in these pictures. What more does it take for you to call MC?

[Rich Ives]

The fielder never has possession of the ball. There aren't enough photos of what happened leading into this but it looks like it could have been possible (given the feet positioning) that the fielder pivoted into the runner's path. We don't know. I do know that in photo 2 the fielder is looking at the runner, not the ball - maybe that's why he misplayed the ball.

Flat out not enough info.

[Richvee]

From the pictures, which of course doesn't tell the full story, I've got to think about MC here. Look at 4-5-6-7. The runner's intent looks to be completely focused on burying this infielders face into the dirt. I don't see any indication of this runner even making an attempt at the bag until he threw a shoulder into his chin, then put his head in the ground with BOTH hands. Note picture 7. He's pushing the kid's face into the ground two handed. You can't even see the base because it's still a few feet behind the fielder. If he was reaching for the base, his left hand would be reaching for the base, not trying to bury the fielder's face in the dirt. Look at where the fielder's head is in relation to the base in 7 and then where his head ends up in 8. looks to me like the runner pummeled this guy.

[Batman1262]

Very hard to tell from a series of still pics, but from what I see, I got MC and the runner is out. Runner is supposed to try to avoid contact. It is clear that wasn't even an attempt. Even if the bag is blocked, runner is supposed to avaiod and leave it to us to call OBS. I am speaking in the rules of FED. Hard to tell from still pics tho

[sdix00]

Since we are playing detective based on photos. I will offer an argument against MC.

In slide 12, R1 is holding F4's cap as if to say "Good sir, you seem to have lost your TOP hat. Allow me to dust it off for you."

Nah, I still have MC. See slide 3-4. Runner must avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.

This is fun.

[zm1283]

Without the video it's tough to tell, but I don't see how you could have MC here. This is also definitely a thrown ball on a stolen base. You can tell by the way the fielder is fielding the ball, and because the runner is already in a head first slide.

To me, obstruction is about the only option. Fielder blocking access to the base without the ball, runner tries to slide head first and there is a train wreck that isn't malicious. The runner is already on his knees when the contact happens, so he didn't truck him while he was still running.

[mstaylor]

Runner is supposed to try to avoid contact

It's really impossible to tell from the pictures. The fielder could have stepped in the way after the runner started his slide. If so, absolutely obstruction. The pictures look bad for the runner but it may have been the fielder's fault. It could be MC which would supersede the obstruction. Without video, hard to tell.

[Rich Ives]

Since we are playing detective based on photos. I will offer an argument against MC.

In slide 12, R1 is holding F4's cap as if to say "Good sir, you seem to have lost your TOP hat. Allow me to dust it off for you."

Nah, I still have MC. See slide 3-4. Runner must avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.

This is fun.

What if the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - still MC. If so: Why?

And how could the fielder be making a play if he didn't have the ball - which he clearly didn't.

[sdix00]

Since we are playing detective based on photos. I will offer an argument against MC.

In slide 12, R1 is holding F4's cap as if to say "Good sir, you seem to have lost your TOP hat. Allow me to dust it off for you."

Nah, I still have MC. See slide 3-4. Runner must avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.

This is fun.

What if the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - still MC. If so: Why?

Judgement based on the info that I have. What if a spaceship used its tractor beam and threw the runner in to the fielder? Not enough info.

And how could the fielder be making a play if he didn't have the ball - which he clearly didn't.

IMO, the standards are different for Obstruction vs. "Attempt to avoid" in FED.

While a fielder is not protected from obstruction while "in the immediate act of making a play on him", If the fielder is "in the immediate act of making a play on him" of fielding the thrown ball, the runner must still attempt to avoid him. I see no evidence that the runner attempted to avoid the fielder here.

So for me, the only judgement is to determine whether there is OBS because the fielder does not have the ball, or if the runner is out for failing to avoid, or if he is out for failing to avoid + EJ'd for MC.


Based on the evidence available, even if the fielder was obstructing, I still have MC, so it's all moot.