Contact at the plate - video

[grayhawk]

I apologize if this has been posted before. I searched the forum and didn't see anything. Watch the video and give your ruling. (FED).

[scrounge]

It's hard to tell given the distance or angle whether the runner slid to the base or slid intentionally at the catcher. It doesn't look like the runner gave much of an effort to avoid contact...but he did slide, sort of. I can see a scenario how the PU may have thought it was malicious contact. But I'd say the more likely call would be OBS, ignored since the tag wasn't made.

[Replacematt]

I can see a scenario how the PU may have thought it was malicious contact. But I'd say the more likely call would be OBS, ignored since the tag wasn't made.

Both can occur.

Only MC is penalized in that case.

[UmpJM]

Grayhawk,

Try this:

JM

[UMP45]

Train wreck.

[gobama84]

Train wreck.

+1

[BT_Blue]

Agreed. This is a trainwreck. I have R2 attempting to slide and there being contact. If I have anything is OBS. HOWEVER, since HPU had malicious contact you have INT since it happened before he reached HP which would be an out and an EJ.

On the plus side... HPU did dump the kid right away.

[pastor ump]

looking from the stands like this its hard to tell but as BT_Blue said he dumped him right away. That being said I can't disagree with what he saw plus you can tell that both umpires atleast have a clue as they try to handle the chaos of the aftermath as best they can.

[Replacematt]

If I'm PU, coach is probably getting dumped, too. He's not getting that close that quickly without me taking action.

[scrounge]

Oh, absolutely, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant that I could see where it definitely could have been just OBS with no MC, but that the angle and distance makes it hard for me to rule out MC. Clearly if the PU saw MC as he did, then that supersedes.

The slide looks odd, like he was aiming at F2. But again, the distance and angle of the camera makes it hard to be definitive. So I'm trusting the PU, naturally

I can see a scenario how the <acronym title='plate umpire'>PU</acronym> may have thought it was malicious contact. But I'd say the more likely call would be <acronym title='Obstruction'>OBS</acronym>, ignored since the tag wasn't made.

Both can occur.

Only <acronym title='Malicious Contact'>MC</acronym> is penalized in that case.

[JaxRolo]

Oh, absolutely, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant that I could see where it definitely could have been just OBS with no MC, but that the angle and distance makes it hard for me to rule out MC. Clearly if the PU saw MC as he did, then that supersedes.

The slide looks odd, like he was aiming at F2. But again, the distance and angle of the camera makes it hard to be definitive. So I'm trusting the PU, naturally

I can see a scenario how the <acronym title='plate umpire'>PU</acronym> may have thought it was malicious contact. But I'd say the more likely call would be <acronym title='Obstruction'>OBS</acronym>, ignored since the tag wasn't made.

Both can occur.

Only <acronym title='Malicious Contact'>MC</acronym> is penalized in that case.

+1 the slide did look a little odd. But who really knows what happened.

As shown on the video I got nothing.

[cyclonehokiece]

I see trainwreck from my point of view, but I can see where PU may see malicious contact.

BTW, great job dad. What an idiot commentary. Even the other parents are like "dude, shut up!"

[grayhawk]

Wanted to see how others would rule before I posted, so here goes.

I don't see this as a train wreck under FED rules. In OBR, I could see it, but not FED. Here's what I have:

1. Obstruction on F2. He sets up blocking the entire plate without the ball and the runner bearing down. He cannot be "in the act" of fielding the ball in HS - he must have possession to block the plate.

2. I have an illegal slide on the runner, and MC. This is more of a cross body block than a slide. He does not have "one leg and one buttock" on the ground. He also went right at F2 and made no attempt to get around him. If he slides legally, or if he tries to go around him, I have Obstruction on F2 and the runner scoring.

3. Since MC supersedes obstruction, and it happened before he scored. Runner is out and ejected.

That's my thought process and why I agree with the umpire on the field.

[JaxRolo]

Wanted to see how others would rule before I posted, so here goes.

I don't see this as a train wreck under <acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'><acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'>FED</acronym></acronym> rules. In <acronym title='Official Baseball Rules'><acronym title='Official Baseball Rules'>OBR</acronym></acronym>, I could see it, but not <acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'><acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'>FED</acronym></acronym>. Here's what I have:

1. Obstruction on <acronym title='Catcher'><acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym></acronym>. He sets up blocking the entire plate without the ball and the runner bearing down. He cannot be "in the act" of fielding the ball in HS - he must have possession to block the plate.

2. I have an illegal slide on the runner, and <acronym title='Malicious Contact'><acronym title='Malicious Contact'>MC</acronym></acronym>. This is more of a cross body block than a slide. He does not have "one leg and one buttock" on the ground. He also went right at <acronym title='Catcher'><acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym></acronym> and made no attempt to get around him. If he slides legally, or if he tries to go around him, I have Obstruction on <acronym title='Catcher'><acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym></acronym> and the runner scoring.

3. Since <acronym title='Malicious Contact'><acronym title='Malicious Contact'>MC</acronym></acronym> supersedes obstruction, and it happened before he scored. Runner is out and ejected.

That's my thought process and why I agree with the umpire on the field.

Did the ball get to F2 before contact was made? Is so no obstruction.

I don't see an illegal slide. Just a strange looking slide.

He is not required to slide around <acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym> unless it's a <acronym title='Force Play Slide Rule'>FPSR</acronym> situation.

[UmpJM]

grayhawk,

I'm with you on the obstruction and the illegal slide.

Not so sure about the malicious contact, but the camera angle makes it pretty tough to tell, and the calling ump at least "seemed" pretty convinced it was, and he had a much better vantage than the camera.

JM

P.S. To "imbed" a You Tube video, click the "share button" and copy & paste the short URL that shows up into your post - on the off chance you were wondering.

[grayhawk]

Jax, that's not true. The fielder cannot block access to the base without possession of the ball - even if he is moving in the path of the runner while in the act of fielding it. Contact does not have to be made - if you judge that the fielder "altered the pattern of play" without possession of the ball, then obstruction should be called. This means that all the runner has to do is slow down his advance, and you should call obstruction. A play in our HS clinic was described where F2 is blocking the plate while waiting for a throw. The runner goes around him and tries to touch the plate but is tagged before he can reach it on the back side of F2. There was no contact. Obstruction is the call and the runner awarded home. F2 altered the pattern of play without possession of the ball.

UmpJM, I do agree on your comment about MC. I MAY just rule it an illegal slide without MC, but PU had a much better angle, so I will defer to him.

Not sure why it didn't work before, but I copied the link from your post and it didn't work. I went back and copied the link from Youtube and it did. Thanks.

[JaxRolo]

I agree that F2 can not block the plate before the ball gets there so if there is contact then you ave OBS.

Once the ball gets there and there is contact then it's ok.

Not trying to ague. Just the way I've been taught..

I wiill look up the rule and case plays when I get home

[grayhawk]

I agree that F2 can not block the plate before the ball gets there so if there is contact then you ave OBS.

Once the ball gets there and there is contact then it's ok.

Not trying to ague. Just the way I've been taught..

I wiill look up the rule and case plays when I get home

Not if the pattern of play was altered first (runner adjusts his slide, slows down, changes his path). If any of these things happen while F2 is blocking access to the plate without possession of the ball, it is obstruction even if the ball arrived prior to any actual contact.

[Fittske24]

One may lean towards MC because the contact results in an injury. However as we know, all contact is not MC. What I see is a runner who is attempting to avoid a catcher who has been drawn up the line by a throw that is slightly offline. The runner does attempt to slide in order to avoid contact with the catcher. In doing so, the runner uses an illegal cross body slide (2.32.2a) which by rule, results in interference by the runner (8.4.2b). The runner should be called out (not ejected) and runners return to last base touched prior to the interference and all preceding runs score.

[MidAmUmp]

I've watched the video a few times and read some of your comments.

Here's what I see:

1- The plate umpire is in a terrible position.

2- The catcher is in the act of fielding the ball so there is no obstruction.

3- The runner is doing his job and does nothing to maliciously go after the catcher.

4- The ball, fielder and runner are at the same spot at the same time (or pretty close).

This is incidental contact. I'm sorry the catcher got hurt, but the runner did not take him out.

The umpire got caught up in the emotions of the game, overreacted to the fact there was contact and I would guess felt he needed to act because there was contact at the plate.

The rule book isn't black and white. Umpires must apply common sense and fair play when enforcing the rules and this should have been ruled "Nothing."

[UmpJM]

MidAmUmp,

I believe most of us who are suggesting that there was obstruction are assuming that this was a HS game where being "in the act of fielding" does not relieve the fielder of his liability for obstruction - as it would in an NCAA or OBR game.

What do you think is wrong with the umpire's position? It looks to me like he's at the edge of the dirt circle on 1BLX when the play occurs, which is "textbook" for a "blocking" type of tag play at home, which this certainly was.

JM

[MidAmUmp]

My last paragraph should explain it pretty well. Use common sense and fair play when applying rules and understand the rule book is not black and white.

The catcher had to be in that spot to catch the throw. If you feel he obstructed the runner by doing so...I guess "technically" you might be correct. I would ask you, what do you suggest the catcher do in that situation? Wait until it stops rolling and go pick it up?

Personally, I would not call obstruction on that play at any level of baseball.

Calling obstruction in this situation is what I would call picking up the SH*#ty end of the stick. Of all the things you could call on this play, obstruction would be pretty far down on the list, although you might have backing from the rulebook.

The book does not have an answer for every play, so don't be a rulebook umpire. Use it as it is intended and apply what is written with common sense and fair play.

The "best" umpires cannot quote rules, but they know how to recognize and apply their intent.

See the collision play in the 1975 world series between the Reds & Red Sox. The umpire applied common sense & fair play to a play not specifically covered by the rules and it's one of the best calls ever made by an MLB umpire.

As far as positioning:

The plate umpire, starts off in an extremely poor spot. Unless he moved his eyes without moving his head, he never saw the lead runner touch 3rd.

He should have started at the point of the plate and worked around 3rd base line extended and at least saw the play from our camera angle. I think if he had, the result may have been different.

Again, he "technically" was in the so called right position according to some antiquated mechanics which makes him a "spot umpire". I would rather see him use some instinct and get in a better position.

That's my $0.02 worth and it won't get you a cup of coffee or a gallon of gas anywhere.

[grayhawk]

MidAm, that's great insight and it's something I need to get better at. My only issue is that F2 moved into a position of obstruction well before he was "in the act.". If he had stayed in his initial position and then moved to field the ball, he would get more latitude from me.

My 2 cents is worth less here in SoCal. Cost of living...

[UmpJM]

MidAmUmp,

I'm all for common sense and fair play - but ignoring a rule because you don't like it or don't think it's fair is neither common sense nor fair play. It's putting your personal biases above the rules of the game, which is not within the umpire's authority. Now I don't particularly care for the HS obstruction rule - particularly the "act of fielding" exclusion - because, in my opinion, it goes too far in tipping the balance of play in favor of the offense. But it IS the HS rule, and, under HS rules the catcher in this play absolutely hindered the runner without possession of the ball and that is absolutely obstruction under HS rules.

While I concur with your points about it would have been better for the umpire to start at the point of the plate and then adjust as the play developed, the fact of the matter is that he ended up in the best possible position to call the play that actually happened - perhaps by "dumb luck'.

3BLX is about the worst place he could have been for this play because it would have put a body - specifically, the catcher's body - between him and the play, preventing him from being able to see the potential tag point. The camera is more or less on 3BLX and it's a horrible view of the play at the plate.

JM

[MidAmUmp]

Gray-

I'm on my way to my games and I'll reply with more detail tonight.

I would say find the ball. I'm going off memory, but I think the catcher shifted (yes, early) to catch a bad throw. I'm considering that "in the act".

I'll look again tonight and break down the video a little bit.