johnnyg08

100% I could see it playing out like that.

He's mic'd up...you get his (Little's) audio at the end of the clip.

It ends there. Fans are fans. Full stop.

We disagree.

The middle one is the money shot.

That's what happens when you bring up balls and strikes you saw on replay. He shouldn't have made it about him...he did and he got run.

Exactly. Can't wait to get some reviews in on them

Are there any other FED case plays dealing with obstruction and malicious contact on a runner attempting to score at home plate other than what I've listed below? If so, please chime in w/ what you have. In this case, I'm looking for specifically things contained within the Fed Rule & Case Books. Thanks! Rule 8-4-2e1 e. initiates malicious contact; 1. Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction. Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire's judgment. Case Play: 3.3.1 DD R3 is advancing to home and initiates malicious contact with F2, who is standing out of the baseline. F2 does not have the ball, and there is no play at the plate. RULING: This is considered to be interference, and the ball is dead immediately. R3 is declared out, and because the act is malicious, R3 is also ejected from the game. Any other runners must return to the bases they last touched at the time of the interference. If the declaring of a dead-ball prevented the defense from completing an obvious double play, the umpire shall award the additional out. 3.3.1 SITUATION EE: Upon rounding second, R1 maliciously runs into F6 who is (a) in the baseline or (b) not in the baseline. RULING: In (a), the malicious contact supersedes the obstruction. In (a) and (b), R1 is out and is also to be ejected because of the unsportsmanlike act. *3.3.1 SITUATION II: With no outs, and R2 on second base, B2 hits the ball in the gap, R2 touches and rounds third and heads for home, and initiates malicious contact with F2 a) before touching the plate, or b) after scoring. RULING: In (a) the ball is dead, the runner is out and ejected for malicious contact. In (b) the run counts, the ball is dead and the runner is ejected for malicious contact. In either case the batter-runner must return to the last legally acquired base at the time of the malicious contact.

I was reading the 2018 MLBUM the other day and came across what appears to be a new interpretation of a fair ball. Does this change the old definition/interp of a fair ball where any part of the ball could be over fair territory even if the "base" of the ball was resting in foul territory? Or does it mean something else?

At some point somebody probably told him that he "has a right do the baseline" and he lit him up. There was zero attempt to avoid that collision. As stated earlier. If that's not an MC collision, then they should take it out of the rule book.

Nah, full speed from 2B would suffice.

I will guess that nearly 100% of the time the contact will be minimal and the runner would still be able to touch the plate...not to mention he'll already have it awarded to him by the umpire via obstruction. Umpires underestimate the athlete.

Obstruction on F2. Count the run.

Yeah, I don't see F2 doing anything there besides getting maliciously destroyed by #1.

This still is less than a step away from the collision. F2 isn't lowering anything. @Thunderheads is spot on here. Heck his eyes are still looking toward centerfield...but #1 looks like Ray Lewis prepared to lower the boom!

Not at all, but there are some who wouldn't call anything but OBS in this play and I am baffled by that. If this play isn't MC, I'm not sure why we have it in the rule book? And to take it a bit further, this is a great clip for learning. It has nothing to do w/ the umpire in the field and the decision he made. The goal here is for all of us to learn and get these plays right in the future.

Thanks for posting in in Free for All. My intent was to add content to this thread since it was directly relevant to the discussion we were having here. Thank you for your contributions. I put together a .gif from essentially the 3B coaches box, which gives us a pretty good look at the runners intent. He appears to have at least six steps prior to impact where we could have made some sort of attempt to avoid a violent collision.

I've seen crews get together for a lot less!

Agreed.

I guess I'm not sure what else he needed to see. Batter/Runner essentially barreling at full speed right toward him minus F2 getting in the way. He could have been out in the parking lot and if he could see the home plate area could see the batter/runner truck the catcher.

In an effort to maximize the value of this clip. Please show me where the runner attempted to avoid the collision in this .gif

No problem. I guess my take is that this play has no place in high school baseball. He had this entire area where he could have adjusted and tried to reach the plate, at the same time properly drawing the obstruction call. The runner initiated the contact, the catcher did not initiate any contact, he was going for the baseball. That is not initiating contact. The runner has everything in front of him, the catcher is looking at the baseball with a general feel of where he is.

So you have an "unavoidable collision" obstruction and the run scoring (confirming the call on the field)?