Jump to content

Play at the Plate - Discuss


Fittske24
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2556 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, stkjock said:

great discussion, so based on what I'm gathering in the posts, from the runners stand point, OBR rule set,  he'd be expected to adjust his line to slide into fair territory to avoid the catcher?

 

seems to this layman, it would a difficult thing to do based on the timing of F2s move backward to field the thrown ball.

I don't think that's how pro ball is interpreting the collision rule. In this play, they'd rule that F2 initiated the collision as he moved into the runner's path. Given the time frame, this collision also probably fails to satisfy the "avoidable collision" clause (that is, the runner could not reasonably be expected to have avoided it).

The collision rule prohibits the runner from deviating from his path in order to initiate contact with F2. It does not require him to alter his path when F2 moves to block the plate. In short, not all collisions are the result of illegal action, either by a runner or F2.

The rule is 6.01(i)(1):

Quote

A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate), or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision. If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (regardless of whether the player covering home plate maintains possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, he shall not be adjudged to have violated Rule 6.01(i) (Rule 7.13).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Thank you @maven - so that then since the collision is "not avoidable" if he drops his shoulder and barrels through.....? is the runner out?

Not in pro ball. Why would he be?

The collision rule aims to minimize collisions, but recognizes that some are unavoidable. Play the bounce.

In OBR-based codes that have MC provisions, apply those accordingly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

Very interesting discussion. Also shows how difficult it is to process all this information and apply a rule in fractions of a second.

True enough.

But not only that: unlike plays at 1B or tag plays on the bases (of which we see many), we might go a week or more without a close play at the plate.

Without much practice, it's difficult to acquire a skill.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maven said:

Not in pro ball. Why would he be?

The collision rule aims to minimize collisions, but recognizes that some are unavoidable. Play the bounce.

In OBR-based codes that have MC provisions, apply those accordingly.

I didn't think he would be personally, however, wanted your ultimate expert view, :D

 

as always, appreciate the insights, :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stkjock said:

I didn't think he would be personally, however, wanted your ultimate expert view:D

You're too kind. I'm wrong plenty around here, plus I don't know pro ball as well as many others who contribute to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For NCAA, I don't have OBS on the initial play but the subsequent drop and tag is what has me curious.  However the catcher is not in pursuit of the ball, is 'in the act' of receiving a thrown ball and tags the runner. I've probably have watched it 10 times so in real speed, I'd argue he was in the act of receiving the ball in both the initial throw and after the misplay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, kanedog said:

For NCAA, I don't have OBS on the initial play but the subsequent drop and tag is what has me curious.  However the catcher is not in pursuit of the ball, is 'in the act' of receiving a thrown ball and tags the runner. I've probably have watched it 10 times so in real speed, I'd argue he was in the act of receiving the ball in both the initial throw and after the misplay. 

Frankly, I think you could make a "baseball case" for either interpretation. Neither one is obviously the right way to go.

To promote consistency, NCAA will need an official interpretation of how they want umpires to rule on the OBS exception in their rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, maven said:

Frankly, I think you could make a "baseball case" for either interpretation. Neither one is obviously the right way to go.

To promote consistency, NCAA will need an official interpretation of how they want umpires to rule on the OBS exception in their rule.

Based on the NCAA video guidance, I would say that you have to disregard some of the rulebook wording. NCAA says that when the ball is within 60' the catcher can start to block the basepath while fielding the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Based on the NCAA video guidance, I would say that you have to disregard some of the rulebook wording. NCAA says that when the ball is within 60' the catcher can start to block the basepath while fielding the ball.

The issue in this play is not when his exemption from OBS begins, but when it ends.

As you yourself asked previously, does his failure to field the throw cleanly leave him liable for OBS, or is he still protected as he recovers the ball provided that he does not further impede the runner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all Great Play to bring to our attention and great discussion.

I think we're all in agreement here in OBR - We've got nothing.

NCAA - I am going to have nothing on the initial play, he's in the act of fielding, but OBS on the subsequent play. Simply by the rule:

Quote

When a fielder has made an attempt to field a batted or thrown ball, has missed and is in pursuit of the ball, he may no longer be considered “in the act” of fielding.

He muffed fielding the ball and lost his protection. But... (I realize this isn't the current rule as written) this might be a good example of why the "tangle/untangle" rule might be need to be expanded on for plays other than steals and pick off attempts. Who is actually doing anything wrong in the video? Neither IMO. If you were to extend the principle to this situation, the fielder would have the right to continue to play the ball, and the runner has the right to try and advance. Once the initial tangle/untangle is over (in this case it never was) without any intentional actions by either the play continues. In theory we could get the out or at least let it play itself out. 

NFHS - Obstruction. 

As for the umpire:

  • Position - Not necessarily ideal, but I would not have read this as a collision play and I doubt 99% of others would initially read this as a collision play. I don't think any body could read collision until the ball actually gets to the catcher. By the time you realize it is going to be a collision, it's too late to do much more than a minor adjustment. Had it been fielded cleanly, we'd have nothing more than a typical put out at the plate. So Kudos on just umpiring in an atypical, but real world situation.
  • Timing - Whether you have obstruction and award the runner home or have an out; you have to agree THIS IS AWESOME TIMING. It appears he saw the entire play unfold, the ball being loose and the subsequent play. Kudos again for following the entire play and having remarkable timing.
  • Game Management - It appears the 3rd base coach comes to the umpire to discuss the play. While you cant hear what is said, the umpire handles the assistant coach and then has the discussion with the manager. Too many guys get wrapped up in, I'm not going to discuss this with you because you're the Assistant. You can tell by both the umpire's and assistant coach's body language it was handled well. 
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stkjock said:

Thank you @maven - so that then since the collision is "not avoidable" if he drops his shoulder and barrels through.....? is the runner out?

4 hours ago, maven said:

Not in pro ball. Why would he be?

The collision rule aims to minimize collisions, but recognizes that some are unavoidable. Play the bounce.

In OBR-based codes that have MC provisions, apply those accordingly.

Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment (Rule 7.13(1) Comment): The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i) (Rule 7.13), or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stk004 said:

Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment (Rule 7.13(1) Comment): The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i) (Rule 7.13), or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided.

IF the umpire determined that the collision could have been avoided, THEN lowering the shoulder would support that determination. The play to imagine there is one where the runner is gunning for F2 all along and has time to line him up and knock him down

A runner lowering the shoulder does not REQUIRE the umpire to rule that the collision is avoidable. Given the timing on this play, ruling the collision avoidable is a stretch. Watch how fast it blows up in real time when F2 steps into the runner's path, and imagine the runner went in standing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got nothing on this. It's not obstruction.

The NCAA released the act of fielding/play at the plate video earlier this week (the 3rd base umpire is a good looking guy, by the way) and they said if the ball is within the final 60' the catcher is considered in the act of fielding. In the NCAA video the catcher caught the ball and blocked the plate in one motion. In this video the catcher has to move to catch the ball...he is legal. The runner had not entered the dirt circle at that point. So he must slide legally or avoid contact. He appears to have slid legally. The catcher drops the ball and almost immediately picks it up and tags the runner before the runner touches the plate. Runner out, inning over. 

Mechanically, I'd like to see the umpire continue to move to his right and end up in fair territory. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

I've got nothing on this. It's not obstruction.

The NCAA released the act of fielding/play at the plate video earlier this week (the 3rd base umpire is a good looking guy, by the way) and they said if the ball is within the final 60' the catcher is considered in the act of fielding. In the NCAA video the catcher caught the ball and blocked the plate in one motion. In this video the catcher has to move to catch the ball...he is legal. The runner had not entered the dirt circle at that point. So he must slide legally or avoid contact. He appears to have slid legally. The catcher drops the ball and almost immediately picks it up and tags the runner before the runner touches the plate. Runner out, inning over. 

Mechanically, I'd like to see the umpire continue to move to his right and end up in fair territory. 

I don't see the bolded part in the rules but if that's the interp I'm good with it. Last year they had a video of a catcher sticking his leg out while in the act of fielding and it was obstruction. In that case he had not caught the ball yet but was in the act of fielding and the ball arrived a millisecond? after he stuck his leg out.  In the OP video the catcher did not have to move back and turn his leg into the basepath to be legitimately fielding the throw. It appears that NCAA will allow catchers to block the plate while fielding the ball and the blocking action would not be a required part of their motion to field the ball. The rule book wording of a legitimate attempt involving a reaction to the throw would appear to be not germane. So, while concerned with collisions at the plate, and writing new rules to deal with that, they have confused the issue at least with me, with their 2017 interps. In the OP I don't think the catcher did drop the ball. He blocked it and blocked the plate without possession of the ball. I think there is rule book language that makes that a violation of the collision rule and the runner would be safe. But maybe NCAA could clear up how much leeway a fielder has when there is a booted ball. Using the current NCAA interp there will be more collisions as catchers can slide into the baseline as the throw approaches to block the plate while they receive a throw that did not require any part of their body to be in the basepath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I don't see the bolded part in the rules but if that's the interp I'm good with it. Last year they had a video of a catcher sticking his leg out while in the act of fielding and it was obstruction. In that case he had not caught the ball yet but was in the act of fielding and the ball arrived a millisecond? after he stuck his leg out.  In the OP video the catcher did not have to move back and turn his leg into the basepath to be legitimately fielding the throw. It appears that NCAA will allow catchers to block the plate while fielding the ball and the blocking action would not be a required part of their motion to field the ball. The rule book wording of a legitimate attempt involving a reaction to the throw would appear to be not germane. So, while concerned with collisions at the plate, and writing new rules to deal with that, they have confused the issue at least with me, with their 2017 interps. In the OP I don't think the catcher did drop the ball. He blocked it and blocked the plate without possession of the ball. I think there is rule book language that makes that a violation of the collision rule and the runner would be safe. But maybe NCAA could clear up how much leeway a fielder has when there is a booted ball. Using the current NCAA interp there will be more collisions as catchers can slide into the baseline as the throw approaches to block the plate while they receive a throw that did not require any part of their body to be in the basepath.

"All in one motion, the catcher receives the ball and uses his body to block the plate." This is a direct quote from Tom Hiler in the video released earlier this week.

It shouldn't be this confusing.

In the video posted here, the catcher moves into the baseline to field the throw. The runner has not yet reached the dirt circle. 

8-2-h Note says "The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered “in the act of fielding”"  

This is what we have in the video posted. Near enough to the fielder is defined as the last 60 feet to home plate.

Yes, the rule note also states that it's entirely umpire judgment if the catcher is in the act of fielding. Much like the discussion in the College forum about the legality of the pitcher's glove...if you are going to say the catcher didn't have to go to that spot to field the throw...you're not using very good judgment and a supervisor would have a hard time supporting you. 

Since the catcher is in the act of fielding he is not guilty of obstruction. Since the runner has not yet reached the dirt circle he must slide legally or give himself up. He does appear to slide legally with a leg and buttock on the ground prior to making contact with the catcher...so he is also legal. Those two things happening mean the contact between the runner and catcher is legal. That means we must have something extra occur to have a penalty. The catcher catching, dropping, immediately recovering the ball, and tagging the runner...or bobbling, never having possession, and picking up the ball and applying a tag is simply a baseball play...much like we continue to protect a fielder when he's within a step and a reach of a batted ball that's been booted.

Had the ball not been within his immediate reach and he had to move to get the loose ball then he would be at risk of committing obstruction had his attempt to get the ball prevented the runner from scoring.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FED

2-22-3 the fielder without possession of the ball denies access

2.22.3C the catcher denied access to home plate prior to securely possessing the ball

so if you deem he denied access, OBS

I'm going with the call as it happened in real time.  Even watching the replay the runner had access to to the fair side of the plate. He thought he was DOA and slid because he thought he had to. IMJ

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FED
2-22-3 the fielder without possession of the ball denies access
2.22.3C the catcher denied access to home plate prior to securely possessing the ball
so if you deem he denied access, OBS
I'm going with the call as it happened in real time.  Even watching the replay the runner had access to to the fair side of the plate. He thought he was DOA and slid because he thought he had to. IMJ
 
 

In FED, this is a no-brainer OBS call. The 'fair side access to the plate' is an excuse. F2 changed his positioning and did not have possession of the ball and the runner had no foresight to see that lane changed. This is an easy OBS in FED
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tborze said:

I'm going with the call as it happened in real time.  Even watching the replay the runner had access to to the fair side of the plate. He thought he was DOA and slid because he thought he had to. IMJ

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "going with the call as it happened in real time."

We should all be aware that in slow motion, everything can look like a violation. I learned this in football, but it applies to baseball.

But in real time I have FED/OBS on this play — actually twice over. First, F2 backs up into the runner's path in order to field the throw. If we're at 3BLX we get that easily. Then F2 blocks the runner off the plate as he's recovering the muffed throw. Even if he hadn't moved without the ball to block the runner, this would be sufficient for OBS in FED.

When I show OBS videos at our local association, I'm always impressed by how many umpires say that they have nothing in them. I suspect that OBS is not called nationally the way FED wants it called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, maven said:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "going with the call as it happened in real time."

We should all be aware that in slow motion, everything can look like a violation. I learned this in football, but it applies to baseball.

But in real time I have FED/OBS on this play — actually twice over. First, F2 backs up into the runner's path in order to field the throw. If we're at 3BLX we get that easily. Then F2 blocks the runner off the plate as he's recovering the muffed throw. Even if he hadn't moved without the ball to block the runner, this would be sufficient for OBS in FED.

When I show OBS videos at our local association, I'm always impressed by how many umpires say that they have nothing in them. I suspect that OBS is not called nationally the way FED wants it called.

So you saw all that in real time? By real time I mean when I first viewed the video, I didn't have OBS. Runner slid way too early and I don't think he has yet touch the plate.

Granted, after replay and your excellent freeze frame post, I can see the debate.  Tonight at our meeting, I'm going to show this video and get an interp from our district interpreter.  If OBS is what FED wants on that, I now know the criteria for OBS, or not. 

BTW I have it 4-4 for FED ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tborze said:

So you saw all that in real time? By real time I mean when I first viewed the video, I didn't have OBS. Runner slid way too early and I don't think he has yet touch the plate.

 

That kind of gets back to the post in the "newbies" section about whether the game is easier at the higher levels -- fewer thirld-world plays, perhaps, but everything is faster (and, thus, tougher to see / call)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

That kind of gets back to the post in the "newbies" section about whether the game is easier at the higher levels -- fewer thirld-world plays, perhaps, but everything is faster (and, thus, tougher to see / call)

Noticed this is the first time you chimed in. What's your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you saw all that in real time? By real time I mean when I first viewed the video, I didn't have OBS. Runner slid way too early and I don't think he has yet touch the plate.
Granted, after replay and your excellent freeze frame post, I can see the debate.  Tonight at our meeting, I'm going to show this video and get an interp from our district interpreter.  If OBS is what FED wants on that, I now know the criteria for OBS, or not. 
BTW I have it 4-4 for FED  
 


Yes, I had OBS in real time.

By focusing on when and where the runner slid, you're making the call harder and more obscure than it need be.

The fielder blocked access to the base without possessing the ball. That's all we need to see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...