Good EJ?

[jpperez14]

13-14U Game, Runners on 1st and 2nd, 2 outs.

Ground ball to the 2nd baseman, that goes under his glove, Runner on 2nd comes around 3rd and comes to score.

The Catcher is standing in the left handed batters box, about 3 feet from the plate.

The runner comes around touches home plate, takes 2 steps throws his arms up at the catcher and shoves him.

Catcher stands his ground, I eject the runner because 1) unsportmanlike and 2) I felt as he was intentionally going for the catcher.

There was no play that was going to happen at the plate. ( Shortstop held the ball at 2nd)

The coach try to say that the runner, his son, has every right to run over the catcher if he is in the baseline.

I counted the run because he scored before the incident, but i believe the ejection was warranted.

was it neccessary? did i handle it right? comments? suggestions for next time?

[Called3rdStrike]

+1

[mjr_2013]

What is the rule set?

[Jocko]

Score the run, dump the runner.

[carolinablue]

Sounds good to me. It's amazing that coaches try to defend BS like that. He should have been chewing him out.

[renegadewolf]

Seems with the bringing up of the arms and connecting with the catcher the runner had one of two things in mind, injure the catcher, or stopping him from potentially fielding the ball. Anyway you slice this, beef sounds good. AS you did, score the run and run the scorer. My only question to the coach would be "since he has already crossed the plate, pray tell, where is this baseline you speak of?" that should pretty much end the discussion.

[mstaylor]

Good toss. Even in our men's league that would be an ejection.

[BRUMP]

What a douche.

[Dannytheman]

He touched the plate then went back after the catcher? Tossed with aggresion. I probably would have tossed his Dad to. Just for his son being a chip off his block!

[scrounge]

He touched the plate then went back after the catcher? Tossed with aggresion. I probably would have tossed his Dad to. Just for his son being a chip off his block!

+1

[UmpJM]

jp,

A question of clarification regarding the sitch...

Was the catcher standing directly in the runner's path as he came in to score, or did the runner change his path in a way unrelated to his effort to score in order to contact the catcher?

JM

[JaxRolo]

What is the rule set?

I don't believe the rule set matters. Good toss

[mjr_2013]

What is the rule set?

I don't believe the rule set matters. Good toss

I read the situation wrong. I thought the runner had shoved the F2 to get to the plate... If so, I was curious if MC applied (in Fed) and the runner was out or if it was just an ejection after the score (in most others).

[Jocko]

Tossed with aggresion.

Crow hop the Haller Boom!

[bam]

He touched the plate then went back after the catcher? Tossed with aggresion. I probably would have tossed his Dad to. Just for his son being a chip off his block!

Catcher in the OTHER left-handed batters box :smachhead:

[Stan W.]

Good toss. Even in our men's league that would be an ejection.

+1

contact like that after scoring?......................instant dump....

[jpperez14]

jp,

A question of clarification regarding the sitch...

Was the catcher standing directly in the runner's path as he came in to score, or did the runner change his path in a way unrelated to his effort to score in order to contact the catcher?

JM

The Catcher was in the back of the left hander's batters box about 3 feet away from the plate. does that answer your question? he was behind the plate. not preventing the runner to the plate.

[UmpJM]

jj,

My question wasn't whether or not he was "blocking" the plate - it was clear he wasn't from the original description.

I was really asking if he was standing in the runner's way - even if it was beyond the plate. Because he really shouldn't have been.

JM

[jpperez14]

jj,

My question wasn't whether or not he was "blocking" the plate - it was clear he wasn't from the original description.

I was really asking if he was standing in the runner's way - even if it was beyond the plate. Because he really shouldn't have been.

JM

Oh sorry. Yes he would be standing in the way, but there was no play coming to the plate. There was no need for him to throw his hands up the way he did and he could of touched and went towards the dugout.

[UmpJM]

jj,

Hey, you were there and I wasn't.

My point is that the catcher really has no business standing in the runner's way in that sitch and if there is some non-malicious incidental contact, I'm likely to give the runner the benefit of the doubt.

If there is no play coming, that should be obvious to the catcher, while the runner, who has his back to the play, may be unaware that a play is not pending and may continue through the plate with "urgency". And there is absolutely no reason for the catcher to be in his way. If he's standing in the back of the LH batter's box, HE is the one who "caused" the collision.

Unless the runner goes out of his way to make contact - or does something like throw an elbow at the catcher - I've got "nothing"; except maybe a warning to the catcher to stay out of the runner's way.

JM

[catsbackr]

"The coach try to say that the runner, his son, has every right to run over the catcher if he is in the baseline."

Rules set?

[Pete Peterson Sr]

"The coach try to say that the runner, his son, has every right to run over the catcher if he is in the baseline."

Rules set?

Cats, do you know of a 13/14 rules set somewhere that ALLOWS catchers to be trucked ? Because I've never seen one.

[HokieUmp]

"The coach try to say that the runner, his son, has every right to run over the catcher if he is in the baseline."

Rules set?

Cats, do you know of a 13/14 rules set somewhere that ALLOWS catchers to be trucked ? Because I've never seen one.

Pete, I hate to speak for him, but I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic.

[catsbackr]

Thanks Hokie, I should have used a smiley.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Thanks Hokie, I should have used a smiley.

Mea culpa.