jimurrayalterego

Neither of you although you are correct in believing that LL, MLB/OBR, NCAA do not use a line between 1B and 3B. A batted ball that bounds or lands past 1B or 3B (Past being judged by a line from either base to 2B) such as your fly ball with english in front of the CF would be fair. You are correct about a ball with english or that hits a sprinkler head before 1B or 3B and goes foul would be foul except in NFHS where they draw a line from 1B to 3B and it would depend where that ball hit. I know of no guidance as to my imaginary lines described for OBR/NCAA or the NFHS line that specifies any specific corner of the base or the actual basepoint and I've never seen a play where we had to answer that question.

"Exclusive? No." Yes I have been reeducated form a past PBUC: But should should U1 have called it in my OP?

It was 4 man. U1 was in A. But I have to admit I had the opinion, learned somewhere, that RLI belonged to the PU.

I think this was RLI whether or not the FED interp is used. I think the PU stayed focused on the ball. I have always thought that only the PU can call RLI and if I'm one of the BUs here I would not interject. I would expect a coach to come out to the PU and then maybe we tell him what we saw and get it called. Anyone differ and call it as U1? NFHS Network

If he disengaged he can throw anywhere as an infielder and it wouldn't be a balk unless you perceived intentional delay of the game which I wouldn't in the OP. Are both of you not aware that if you can legally feint to a base while engaged then you also can throw to a fielder off that base if there is a runner and the pitcher steps legally?

Interestingly, the game has been disappeared from the NFHS on demand videos. That's happened before with a Texas HS playoff game. I think it was a game with a scrum.

Just to remind the BU, especially on tweeners, "I've got the line" or I'm on the line". I also tell my BU if he hears that I still have 3B tag up but if circumstances permit back me up.

While FED allows a coach to help up a runner during a dead ball, specifying "this type of assistance", I think they, and OBR and NCAA, don't allow assistance in touching a base during a dead ball.

So U3 called it. The PU did gesture toward 3B when talking with the DC. That leaves U1 and U2 that might have had some input about. Why the DC didn't insist on a crew get together I don't know. Except I do know. Coaches teach to crash a fielder when they are dead ducks in a rundown and this coach thought that's what he teaches and that's what he expects to get called. Done a little more subtilty it even gets MLB umps to call it.

We don't think that but we agree that if the umpire thought that he ruled correctly.

Corrected, thanks for the catch.

I watched it. The PU signaled a left arm point at the contact when it happened which I guess was his OBS call. Thus the safe and run scored signal. The OC DC came out and discussed it with the PU and then returned to the dugout. I would have thought the OC DCwould want the crew to get together to discuss the rule and whether U3 could help in determining the runner's attempt at trying to collide with the catcher. That didn't happen. When watching I thought I would have given a "that's nothing" signal and let them play on. I don't think we can call INT here but maybe MC. MLB runners have gotten away with more subtle attempts but this was not subtle enough. As this also was not subtle enough in MLB:

And aside from the balk rule they also address and permit it elsewhere in notes or comments.

The runner was breaking down. He should have been trained to slide or avoid a catcher who should have not set up in his basepath but apparently might have been doing that all season long and getting away with it. I don't see where the runner violated the definition of Flagrant Collision but I'm asking for NCAA interps that still eject over collisions where the runner decides too late and collides with an obstructing catcher who is actually violating the collision rule.

I agree. But they ejected a runner who did not do anything flagrant or malicious to a catcher who did not have the ball and violated the Collision rule and Obstruction rule. "Flagrant Collision SECTION 31. A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7). The catcher put himself in position to have a collision. The runner, first impulse trying to score, finds a catcher standing in the way. He decides too late to slide, a slide which would have maybe not even got him to HP but which would have taken the catcher's ankles out, so he breaks down late and uses his arms to prevent upper body contact. He also could have deviated but I don't think any NCAA coach has run training drills about how to draw an OBS call when a fielder is illegally obstructing you. There is no rule justification for an ejection for that runner in the NCAA rules. If you have cites on their website that add ejection for a Flagrant Collision between a catcher obstructing without the ball and a runner failing to slide let me know. And also let me know if the slide has to be legal in reaching the base or before he contacts a catcher up the line where the slide would not take the runner to HP. The catcher blocking the plate without a need was the cause of this. Yes the throw might have given us a fielding the throw exemption but most likely he was there from the getgo. But he didn't have the ball and the runner was not trying to dislodge it

The rule ejects the runner for flagrant or malicious contact with a catcher in possession of the ball. They then extend it to this play which is covered by para c. and doesn't have an ejection penalty. If the catcher violates para c and a collision results from a legal slide why wouldn't they extend the ejection penalty to the catcher?

Lately I have seen more catchers set up inside the foul line in HS and MLB and less setting up in the basepath. The OP catcher most likely was set up in the basepath and not in response to the trajectory of the throw although the throw went there. A proper slide would have caused a collision also. Would the catcher then be guilty and ejected? Are you telling catchers not to do that if you see it being done so as to encourage him to avoid collisions?

So back to para c and the definition of flagrant collision. The catcher did not have the ball and violated the "Collision Rule" as well as the OBS rule. The runner might have violated the illegal slide rule but we could make a case for him starting to slide at the proper point and unable to finish legally due to F2. Where is the penalty/ies for para c How does NCAA eject when there was not a Flagrant Collision per their definition: Flagrant Collision SECTION 31� A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7)� And why is the catcher not guilty of this: "Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless they have both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score." And where is an ejection penalty if a catcher or runner violated para c? I realize it's been beaten to death but without us buying an NCAA membership can someone post cites from what they put on the current website.

Do I have dementia?

There is no specified penalty in OBR or NFHS either. They just want to perturb @ManinBlue with emails and interps. But am I reading the NCAA softball rule correctly? Viable runners can't assist but teammates and scored runners can?

What rule or interp does apply here? What cite has shown us that contact above the waist in any circumstance is MC and where have we beaten it to death?

He had an obvious step but it was more towards HP than 1B, not seen by me until easily seen from the 3B camera view and U3. No crossed leg which would not be a balk anyway unless any part of the foot attached to that leg went behind the back edge of the rubber.

Run it by Randy Bruns. I think he would agree with you based on his literal interp of some of the pitching rules, such as a stutter step to turn sideways being a step toward HP in the delivery. Let me know when he gets back to you on this and that other question about coach assist☺️

So there must be NCAA interps that contact above the waist is always MC because it only appears when a runner attempts to dislodge the ball that a fielder already has? Take away is slide legally or go around the catcher even if a legal slide would leave you 2 feet from HP. Count on PU calling OBS. But would OBS have been called if that catcher was set up in that position to start with as opposed to him going there to receive the throw? "it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field a throw that arrives at the position of the catcher at the same time as the runner, (e.g, in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder)."

The fielder did not have a ball to dislodge. It appears the runner initiated some type of move/slide other than a straight crash of the catcher.