Contact at the plate - video

[noumpere]

Cant you still have a train wreck in HS ball as long as the catcher in this play doesnt deny complete access to the base? Im not saying that was the case in this play just asking a more general question. Based on the camera angle I think the video could have been ruled to be almost anything and thats why we get the bigbucks.

[cuban]

I got nothing. Sometimes kids just run into each other.

In my opinion 1st base line extended is the worst place to see plays at the plate. I pretty much take all my plays at the dish 3rd base line extended, but some times I prefer to swing out even more until I'm almost near the actuall first base line. I've seen guys in the show be in fair territory sometimes.

JM- I'm not trying to bust your balls but if you have this happen this year, call obstruction and see what happen.

[MidAmUmp]

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...

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

Okay...

First, I'm going to respond to UmpJM. No where in any of my posts have I suggested "ignoring" a written rule. I am simply saying you need to apply the rule as it is intended with common sense and fair play. As cuban has posted, call obstruction and see what happens. I would suggest asking your local assoc. and state association if they would agree with you that this play is obstruction. I would say they probably would not support that call.

And, no the umpire did not take the play in the best possible position. Had he taken the play where I'm suggesting, he would have possibly seen everything occur, instead of having it blow up on him because the entire play is not in front of him. See my diagrams I have attached to explain the collision location and where I would suggest taking the play...

Now, on to Gray. I have watched the video and made several notes. Go back, watch the video again, pausing with my notes to see what I'm saying...

0:27 - the ball is hit.

0:28 - the UIC incorrectly wanders up into the RH batter's box instead of stepping back to the point of the plate.

0:30 - the UIC (in my opinion) does not observe the lead runner's touch of 3rd...maybe he did, but it doesn't look like it.

0:32 - the Catcher moves in front of home plate & up the 3rd base line.

0:34 - a fielder (can't tell who for sure) has cut the ball from the outfield and throws home

0:35-0:36 - the ball is on its way to the plate / the Catcher sets up to field the throw by stepping back into foul territory and still up the 3rd base line from home plate. Runner has made a wide turn rounding 3rd and is running in foul territory on the grass and in a line towards home plate.

0:37 - The collision occurs up the 3rd base line and in foul territory. Pausing the video here will allow you to see the catcher is clearly not blocking the plate and is in fact, no where near the plate, therefore, should not be called for obstruction for blocking the plate with out the baseball. The runner had a clear path to the plate had he chosen to take it.

See screen shot of video and diagram of where I would have taken the play...

[mstaylor]

Mid Am:

You said to ignore the obstruction because he is in the act of fielding. If this is a HS game then it is absolutely obstruction. The runner has taken a natural wide turn around third so now his baseline is between his position in foul to the plate. F2 moves with the throw, which natural, but ends up with his right foot on the plate. The runner does not go out of his way to hit the catcher and I don't see the slide to be MC. Can't tell without seeing it from the other side but I have obstruction and a run.

You may not like FED's version of obstruction but the rule was put in place because umpires just wouldn't call obstruction correctly, if at all. Umpires insisted that almost everything was in the act of fielding and allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Because of this, NCAA, then LL, then FED all changed their obstruction rule to make it impossible not to call it.

LL and NCAA backed away some after the first year, but FED has not. They have been very clear, no ball, obstruction. There is no CSFP to be used in FED. They do not want it.

I will call it and deal with the coach. I will call a FPSR when it happens, even though I know the coach is going to hate it. I will call interference when it happens. I really could care less if the coach gets mad. We are dealing with scolastic sports not men's league.

The same play in NCAA or OBR is perfectly legal.

[MidAmUmp]

Mid Am:

You said to ignore the obstruction because he is in the act of fielding. If this is a HS game then it is absolutely obstruction. The runner has taken a natural wide turn around third so now his baseline is between his position in foul to the plate. F2 moves with the throw, which natural, but ends up with his right foot on the plate. The runner does not go out of his way to hit the catcher and I don't see the slide to be MC. Can't tell without seeing it from the other side but I have obstruction and a run.

You may not like FED's version of obstruction but the rule was put in place because umpires just wouldn't call obstruction correctly, if at all. Umpires insisted that almost everything was in the act of fielding and allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Because of this, NCAA, then LL, then FED all changed their obstruction rule to make it impossible not to call it.

LL and NCAA backed away some after the first year, but FED has not. They have been very clear, no ball, obstruction. There is no CSFP to be used in FED. They do not want it.

I will call it and deal with the coach. I will call a FPSR when it happens, even though I know the coach is going to hate it. I will call interference when it happens. I really could care less if the coach gets mad. We are dealing with scolastic sports not men's league.

The same play in NCAA or OBR is perfectly legal.

In case I haven't chosen my words very well, let me make this pretty clear. I am not advocating anyone ignore any rules. In my opinion, there is NO OBSTRUCTION on this play. I simply do not believe (and feel I have broken down the screen shot of the colision to support my view) that the catcher did not deny the runner access to home plate without the baseball in his possession.

You say the catcher ends up with his right foot on home plate ... please explain? In the screen shot of the colision they are clearly up the line and in foul territory.

Obviously you and others feel I'm wrong and advocating only enforcing certain rules you want to enforce, so I shall step away and lend no more advice or suggestions in cases such as this.

[scrounge]

Let me just say, while I tend to lean to the OBS call myself, I hope you won't cease to comment. I've found the debate very interesting and it made me question aspects and look for things like whether the plate was fully obstructed or not, position of the ball and throw, baseline, etc. There's value in that debate and the back and forth. Of course, there's a point where it becomes repetitious but I'm glad there's been both sides on this.

Mid Am:

You said to ignore the obstruction because he is in the act of fielding. If this is a HS game then it is absolutely obstruction. The runner has taken a natural wide turn around third so now his baseline is between his position in foul to the plate. F2 moves with the throw, which natural, but ends up with his right foot on the plate. The runner does not go out of his way to hit the catcher and I don't see the slide to be MC. Can't tell without seeing it from the other side but I have obstruction and a run.

You may not like FED's version of obstruction but the rule was put in place because umpires just wouldn't call obstruction correctly, if at all. Umpires insisted that almost everything was in the act of fielding and allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Because of this, NCAA, then LL, then FED all changed their obstruction rule to make it impossible not to call it.

LL and NCAA backed away some after the first year, but FED has not. They have been very clear, no ball, obstruction. There is no CSFP to be used in FED. They do not want it.

I will call it and deal with the coach. I will call a FPSR when it happens, even though I know the coach is going to hate it. I will call interference when it happens. I really could care less if the coach gets mad. We are dealing with scolastic sports not men's league.

The same play in NCAA or OBR is perfectly legal.

In case I haven't chosen my words very well, let me make this pretty clear. I am not advocating anyone ignore any rules. In my opinion, there is NO OBSTRUCTION on this play. I simply do not believe (and feel I have broken down the screen shot of the colision to support my view) that the catcher did not deny the runner access to home plate without the baseball in his possession.

You say the catcher ends up with his right foot on home plate ... please explain? In the screen shot of the colision they are clearly up the line and in foul territory.

Obviously you and others feel I'm wrong and advocating only enforcing certain rules you want to enforce, so I shall step away and lend no more advice or suggestions in cases such as this.

[mstaylor]

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.

This statement is true for OBR and NCAA, it is not true for FED. That's what I was ttrying to say. The fact that the rules were changed because too many umpires refused to call or didn't understand how to call obstruction. As somebody that has been arguing for years on the internet for calling obstruction more often I am well aware of the tendency to pass on it. I am well aware of how to call using CSFP but FED has been very specific how it is to be called.

[Rich Ives]

Mid Am:

You said to ignore the obstruction because he is in the act of fielding. If this is a HS game then it is absolutely obstruction. The runner has taken a natural wide turn around third so now his baseline is between his position in foul to the plate. F2 moves with the throw, which natural, but ends up with his right foot on the plate. The runner does not go out of his way to hit the catcher and I don't see the slide to be MC. Can't tell without seeing it from the other side but I have obstruction and a run.

You may not like FED's version of obstruction but the rule was put in place because umpires just wouldn't call obstruction correctly, if at all. Umpires insisted that almost everything was in the act of fielding and allowed them to do whatever they wanted. Because of this, NCAA, then LL, then FED all changed their obstruction rule to make it impossible not to call it.

LL and NCAA backed away some after the first year, but FED has not. They have been very clear, no ball, obstruction. There is no CSFP to be used in FED. They do not want it.

I will call it and deal with the coach. I will call a FPSR when it happens, even though I know the coach is going to hate it. I will call interference when it happens. I really could care less if the coach gets mad. We are dealing with scolastic sports not men's league.

The same play in NCAA or OBR is perfectly legal.

In case I haven't chosen my words very well, let me make this pretty clear. I am not advocating anyone ignore any rules. In my opinion, there is NO OBSTRUCTION on this play. I simply do not believe (and feel I have broken down the screen shot of the colision to support my view) that the catcher did not deny the runner access to home plate without the baseball in his possession.

You say the catcher ends up with his right foot on home plate ... please explain? In the screen shot of the colision they are clearly up the line and in foul territory.

Obviously you and others feel I'm wrong and advocating only enforcing certain rules you want to enforce, so I shall step away and lend no more advice or suggestions in cases such as this.

You seem to be overlooking a major point. Being way over in foul ground means squat. It's not about blocking the baseline - it's about blocking the runner's basepath. If F2 is in the direct line from the runner to the base he's potentially guilty of obstruction.

[JaxRolo]

I am with MidAmUmp on this.

But what it comes down to is that we are all seeing this our own way and think the others are wrong,

In reality we are all Correct. Any way we call this there is going to be an argument the other way.

[UmpJM]

...

Okay...

First, I'm going to respond to UmpJM. No where in any of my posts have I suggested "ignoring" a written rule. I am simply saying you need to apply the rule as it is intended with common sense and fair play. As cuban has posted, call obstruction and see what happens. I would suggest asking your local assoc. and state association if they would agree with you that this play is obstruction. I would say they probably would not support that call.

And, no the umpire did not take the play in the best possible position. Had he taken the play where I'm suggesting, he would have possibly seen everything occur, instead of having it blow up on him because the entire play is not in front of him. See my diagrams I have attached to explain the collision location and where I would suggest taking the play...

Now, on to Gray. I have watched the video and made several notes. Go back, watch the video again, pausing with my notes to see what I'm saying...

0:27 - the ball is hit.

0:28 - the UIC incorrectly wanders up into the RH batter's box instead of stepping back to the point of the plate.

0:30 - the UIC (in my opinion) does not observe the lead runner's touch of 3rd...maybe he did, but it doesn't look like it.

0:32 - the Catcher moves in front of home plate & up the 3rd base line.

0:34 - a fielder (can't tell who for sure) has cut the ball from the outfield and throws home

0:35-0:36 - the ball is on its way to the plate / the Catcher sets up to field the throw by stepping back into foul territory and still up the 3rd base line from home plate. Runner has made a wide turn rounding 3rd and is running in foul territory on the grass and in a line towards home plate.

0:37 - The collision occurs up the 3rd base line and in foul territory. Pausing the video here will allow you to see the catcher is clearly not blocking the plate and is in fact, no where near the plate, therefore, should not be called for obstruction for blocking the plate with out the baseball. The runner had a clear path to the plate had he chosen to take it.

See screen shot of video and diagram of where I would have taken the play...

MidAmUmp,

Serious question - do you call HS games? I ask because, if you first learned the rules under OBR, there are a number of FED rules that make you think things like "THAT's not baseball!" and "What the hell are they thinking with this?!?!" or "Have these guys ever even SEEN a baseball game?!?!"

Imagine, if you will, the exact same action by the catcher and the runner only the ball is still in the cutoff man's hand as he is about to release the throw. I presume you would have obstruction on the catcher, yes? If so, then under FED rules, it's absolutely obstruction. Because he "...hindered the runner without possession of the ball..." - which is the FED rule. The fact that it was a result of his attempt to field a thrown ball is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in FED. Under OBR or NCAA, I would call this nothing but a "train wreck".

In a FED game, I would certainly call it and I would much more likely be chastised for NOT calling it.

In terms of the positioning....

First, nice diagram/illustration. I would concur that the final position you suggest (essentially, on the 1BL) is an excellent position from which to observe the play. But, you must realize, it is identically advantageous as 1BLX - it's the exact same viewpoint from the other side.Your comment about the play "blowing up" on him from 1BLX is true if he gets too close to the play, but, since he's not in the video frame when the collision occurs it's likely that he wasn't too close and there is no objective basis for suggesting he was.

I understand that current MLB & AAA mechanics give preference to 3BLX as the "default" for calling plays at the plate, and then adjusting counter-clockwise if the play develops into a "blocking" type play at the plate. Certainly works if you know how to do it. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with observing a "blocking" play at the plate from 1BLX. Exactly what the recent Evans/Nelson "maximizing..." mechanics manual advocates.

JM

[Rich Ives]

...

Okay...

First, I'm going to respond to UmpJM. No where in any of my posts have I suggested "ignoring" a written rule. I am simply saying you need to apply the rule as it is intended with common sense and fair play. As cuban has posted, call obstruction and see what happens. I would suggest asking your local assoc. and state association if they would agree with you that this play is obstruction. I would say they probably would not support that call.

And, no the umpire did not take the play in the best possible position. Had he taken the play where I'm suggesting, he would have possibly seen everything occur, instead of having it blow up on him because the entire play is not in front of him. See my diagrams I have attached to explain the collision location and where I would suggest taking the play...

Now, on to Gray. I have watched the video and made several notes. Go back, watch the video again, pausing with my notes to see what I'm saying...

0:27 - the ball is hit.

0:28 - the UIC incorrectly wanders up into the RH batter's box instead of stepping back to the point of the plate.

0:30 - the UIC (in my opinion) does not observe the lead runner's touch of 3rd...maybe he did, but it doesn't look like it.

0:32 - the Catcher moves in front of home plate & up the 3rd base line.

0:34 - a fielder (can't tell who for sure) has cut the ball from the outfield and throws home

0:35-0:36 - the ball is on its way to the plate / the Catcher sets up to field the throw by stepping back into foul territory and still up the 3rd base line from home plate. Runner has made a wide turn rounding 3rd and is running in foul territory on the grass and in a line towards home plate.

0:37 - The collision occurs up the 3rd base line and in foul territory. Pausing the video here will allow you to see the catcher is clearly not blocking the plate and is in fact, no where near the plate, therefore, should not be called for obstruction for blocking the plate with out the baseball. The runner had a clear path to the plate had he chosen to take it.

See screen shot of video and diagram of where I would have taken the play...

MidAmUmp,

Serious question - do you call HS games? I ask because, if you first learned the rules under OBR, there are a number of FED rules that make you think things like "THAT's not baseball!" and "What the hell are they thinking with this?!?!" or "Have these guys ever even SEEN a baseball game?!?!"

Imagine, if you will, the exact same action by the catcher and the runner only the ball is still in the cutoff man's hand as he is about to release the throw. I presume you would have obstruction on the catcher, yes? If so, then under FED rules, it's absolutely obstruction. Because he "...hindered the runner without possession of the ball..." - which is the FED rule. The fact that it was a result of his attempt to field a thrown ball is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in FED. Under OBR or NCAA, I would call this nothing but a "train wreck".

In a FED game, I would certainly call it and I would much more likely be chastised for NOT calling it.

In terms of the positioning....

First, nice diagram/illustration. I would concur that the final position you suggest (essentially, on the 1BL) is an excellent position from which to observe the play. But, you must realize, it is identically advantageous as 1BLX - it's the exact same viewpoint from the other side.Your comment about the play "blowing up" on him from 1BLX is true if he gets too close to the play, but, since he's not in the video frame when the collision occurs it's likely that he wasn't too close and there is no objective basis for suggesting he was.

I understand that current MLB & AAA mechanics give preference to 3BLX as the "default" for calling plays at the plate, and then adjusting counter-clockwise if the play develops into a "blocking" type play at the plate. Certainly works if you know how to do it. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with observing a "blocking" play at the plate from 1BLX. Exactly what the recent Evans/Nelson "maximizing..." mechanics manual advocates.

JM

Even in OBR the thrown ball has to be "close enough" before the fielder is considered to be in the act of fielding.

[mstaylor]

...

Okay...

First, I'm going to respond to UmpJM. No where in any of my posts have I suggested "ignoring" a written rule. I am simply saying you need to apply the rule as it is intended with common sense and fair play. As cuban has posted, call obstruction and see what happens. I would suggest asking your local assoc. and state association if they would agree with you that this play is obstruction. I would say they probably would not support that call.

And, no the umpire did not take the play in the best possible position. Had he taken the play where I'm suggesting, he would have possibly seen everything occur, instead of having it blow up on him because the entire play is not in front of him. See my diagrams I have attached to explain the collision location and where I would suggest taking the play...

Now, on to Gray. I have watched the video and made several notes. Go back, watch the video again, pausing with my notes to see what I'm saying...

0:27 - the ball is hit.

0:28 - the UIC incorrectly wanders up into the RH batter's box instead of stepping back to the point of the plate.

0:30 - the UIC (in my opinion) does not observe the lead runner's touch of 3rd...maybe he did, but it doesn't look like it.

0:32 - the Catcher moves in front of home plate & up the 3rd base line.

0:34 - a fielder (can't tell who for sure) has cut the ball from the outfield and throws home

0:35-0:36 - the ball is on its way to the plate / the Catcher sets up to field the throw by stepping back into foul territory and still up the 3rd base line from home plate. Runner has made a wide turn rounding 3rd and is running in foul territory on the grass and in a line towards home plate.

0:37 - The collision occurs up the 3rd base line and in foul territory. Pausing the video here will allow you to see the catcher is clearly not blocking the plate and is in fact, no where near the plate, therefore, should not be called for obstruction for blocking the plate with out the baseball. The runner had a clear path to the plate had he chosen to take it.

See screen shot of video and diagram of where I would have taken the play...

MidAmUmp,

Serious question - do you call HS games? I ask because, if you first learned the rules under OBR, there are a number of FED rules that make you think things like "THAT's not baseball!" and "What the hell are they thinking with this?!?!" or "Have these guys ever even SEEN a baseball game?!?!"

Imagine, if you will, the exact same action by the catcher and the runner only the ball is still in the cutoff man's hand as he is about to release the throw. I presume you would have obstruction on the catcher, yes? If so, then under FED rules, it's absolutely obstruction. Because he "...hindered the runner without possession of the ball..." - which is the FED rule. The fact that it was a result of his attempt to field a thrown ball is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in FED. Under OBR or NCAA, I would call this nothing but a "train wreck".

In a FED game, I would certainly call it and I would much more likely be chastised for NOT calling it.

In terms of the positioning....

First, nice diagram/illustration. I would concur that the final position you suggest (essentially, on the 1BL) is an excellent position from which to observe the play. But, you must realize, it is identically advantageous as 1BLX - it's the exact same viewpoint from the other side.Your comment about the play "blowing up" on him from 1BLX is true if he gets too close to the play, but, since he's not in the video frame when the collision occurs it's likely that he wasn't too close and there is no objective basis for suggesting he was.

I understand that current MLB & AAA mechanics give preference to 3BLX as the "default" for calling plays at the plate, and then adjusting counter-clockwise if the play develops into a "blocking" type play at the plate. Certainly works if you know how to do it. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with observing a "blocking" play at the plate from 1BLX. Exactly what the recent Evans/Nelson "maximizing..." mechanics manual advocates.

JM

Even in OBR the thrown ball has to be "close enough" before the fielder is considered to be in the act of fielding.

Very true but the ball is there because it goes flying at contact. He was trying to catch it but was unable to because he got his legs taken out. I absolutely have a trainwreck in OBR, obstruction in FED.

[ukce1861]

My problem with FED rules is the "immediate act of making a play" language in 8-4-2c. What does that mean? To me, "immediate act of making a play" starts well before "secure possession" of the ball.

What's CSFP?

[johnnyg08]

My problem with FED rules is the "immediate act of making a play" language in 8-4-2c. What does that mean? To me, "immediate act of making a play" starts well before "secure possession" of the ball.

That's where you earn your game fee. Judgment.

[Rich Ives]

.

What's CSFP?

Common Sense and Fair Play

Often at odds with the written rules.

Implement rarely and wisely

[noumpere]

My problem with FED rules is the "immediate act of making a play" language in 8-4-2c. What does that mean? To me, "immediate act of making a play" starts well before "secure possession" of the ball.

What's CSFP?

that rule is used for example for a runner jumping over a fielder attempting a tag. It's not generally used in obstruction cases.

Common Sense and Fair Play

[catsbackr]

Train wreck.

At the very least, in FED, obstruction.

Umpire's positioning is weak at best, completely wrong at worst. 3BLX would have allowed him to see the obstruction and reacted to the throw and let the direction of the throw take him where he needed to be. With the way the throw went, I would have thought he would have worked into the left handed batters box to get a look at a possible swipe tag.

Train wreck.

[JaxRolo]

Again I say that we are all partially correct no matter how we call this play.

It is a Judgement call on how we perceive how we see this play. Given the poor video and poor angles I don't see anything wrong on how the Umpire called the play. Yes, his position may have been bad.

Personally I am with MidAm on this and have nothing on the play. But this is my judgement on the play.

Those that keep saying it is their way and there is no other way are just not seeing the whole picture. I can certainly see how someone else can see OBS or MC. I can also see how it can be nothing.

[grayhawk]

Again I say that we are all partially correct no matter how we call this play.

It is a Judgement call on how we perceive how we see this play. Given the poor video and poor angles I don't see anything wrong on how the Umpire called the play. Yes, his position may have been bad.

Personally I am with MidAm on this and have nothing on the play. But this is my judgement on the play.

Those that keep saying it is their way and there is no other way are just not seeing the whole picture. I can certainly see how someone else can see OBS or MC. I can also see how it can be nothing.

I agree 100% Rolando. I posted this one because it's a tough one to judge. The easy ones are no fun! I have my opinion on how I would call it, and others have theirs. I enjoy the discussion, and I certainly don't hold anyone's differing opinions against them. While the focus has been on whether or not it was obstruction, I think the slide is equally as interesting. I believe it was not a legal slide because he never got "one leg and one buttock" on the ground. Regardless of the possible obstruction, I think the runner is out on the illegal slide anyway. I am okay with MC or no MC on this play. We don't know anything about what happened earlier in the game (if anything) that may have swayed the umpire to believe the contact was malicious. Either way, I am glad someone got this on video so we could all discuss it.

[noumpere]

, I think the slide is equally as interesting. I believe it was not a legal slide because he never got "one leg and one buttock" on the ground. Regardless of the possible obstruction, I think the runner is out on the illegal slide anyway.

But if the runner is not close enough to the plate to slide then Im not going to be really strict on this particular part of the rule. In any slide the runner goes from running to in-the-air to sliding with one leg and one buttock on the ground. If that just happened to be where the collision happened well then its just nothing at least imo.

[mstaylor]

We are assuming it is HS because of the way he called the out and ejected the runner. That is a straight FED ruling.

Since we are fairly certain it is FED, we need to ask certain questions to rule on the play.

Did the catcher have the ball: no.

Did the runner run over him or hit him above the knee: no.

Did the catcher block access to the plate: from the camera angle, hard to tell. I think he did but others don't. That's the sticking point in this play and one we can't really answer.

What we have to remember in FED is the runner is not required to slide but if he does then he has to slide legally. In my opinion he slid late but legally. The catcher moved into his path, the runner did not go out of his path to hit the catcher. The second thing we have to remember is there are little chance for a trainwreck. If he is blocking the base, which I believe he is, without the ball then he is obstructing.

The really interesting part of this play is because the runner actually scored then there isn't an actual obstruction. He has put himself in a position to obstruct but since he missed the ball and the runner scored then it's nothing. So I guess technically it is a trainwreck.

[JaxRolo]

The really interesting part of this play is because the runner actually scored then there isn't an actual obstruction. He has put himself in a position to obstruct but since he missed the ball and the runner scored then it's nothing. So I guess technically it is a trainwreck.

How did we miss this? Very good point Mike.

[TNCoach]

I would say trainwreck. I think a big part of the strange slide, if the runner is smart, is that the catcher was up at the front side of the plate and was fading back to the back side. I wasn't a big time hitter but I was a solid fielder and baserunner. The runner is flying and has a wide turn at 3B. While going in he is watching the catcher to know where to slide. The catcher being out front gives him the back corner of the plate for a slide on the backside, which is often a late slide. As the catcher fades, that is giving him the front side which is normally more of a dive out to the front. All that movement from the catcher makes that runner unsure what to do and makes for an ugly slide.

Sadly, when something looks ugly like that did, it is not uncommon for it to appear to be an intent to injure.

I am not sure how it is in all associations, but I would hope that an umpire would be sure that an offense was worthy of ejection as it might be a suspension. In my case as a coach I get a suspension and fine. In my assistant coach's case, he gets a lifetime ban from being a volunteer coach by our school system.

[BT_Blue]

Once again I have to go back and applaud the HPU. There was no ambiguity in his call. Right or wrong he dumped the kid right away. Not sure if he called him safe or out however (will have to watch again) but because he did have MC (immediately I remind everyone once again) then I have to assume R2 is called out.

Now I just wish that he MORONS in the crowd would shut the heck up so we can hear the conversation going on on the field. Could be a very interesting one.

[mstaylor]

I have to agree, whether it was MC or not, he thought it was and came up big with no hesitation.