Jump to content

R2 dives over F2


GreyhoundAggie
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4036 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

LL doesn't say that contact is automatic but by going over if there is contact, it is more likely than not. Of course the catcher could have come up to cause the contact, MC is not something that you can say if X contact happens it is MC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contact above the waist is an NCAA guideline.

Well yes but its interpreted as an attempt to dislodge the ball and not an attempt to reach the base so its just interference.

 

Contact above the waist is not automatically flagrant or malicious in college or in most HS areas (but if that's what your group wants then enforce it that way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing it is legal in LL unless he makes contact. 

 

It's legal in LL anyway.  There's no contact limitation.

But remember, in small field LL sliding head first into the bag is illegal and is an out. They can only go back into the bag head first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The funny thing it is legal in LL unless he makes contact. 

 

It's legal in LL anyway.  There's no contact limitation.

But remember, in small field LL sliding head first into the bag is illegal and is an out. They can only go back into the bag head first

 

Yep - head first is an out.  Jumping/hurdling is not illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL doesn't say that contact is automatic but by going over if there is contact, it is more likely than not. Of course the catcher could have come up to cause the contact, MC is not something that you can say if X contact happens it is MC

 

I don't follow your post at all.

 

Contact on a hurdle is not penalized  (and LL does not have a MC rule):

 

From the RIM 

 

"INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:

 

 Hurdling or going over the defensive player that has the ball and is waiting to make a tag is a legal maneuver. Rule 7.08(a) (3) does not prevent or make hurdling illegal.

 

 Rule 7.08(a-3) is easily the most misunderstood rule in the book. It is easily broken down as follows: (1) The fielder must have the ball in his/her possession; AND (2) The fielder must be WAITING to make the tag; If BOTH of those two criteria are satisfied, then the runner must EITHER: (1) Slide; OR (2) ATTEMPT to get around the fielder.

 

 Notice that the rule says, “attempt to get aroundâ€, not “avoidâ€. Contact may occur with no penalty assessed.

 

 There is no “Must Slide†rule and no league may create one. No league may modify Rule 7.08(a-3)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The funny thing it is legal in LL unless he makes contact. 

 

It's legal in LL anyway.  There's no contact limitation.

But remember, in small field LL sliding head first into the bag is illegal and is an out. They can only go back into the bag head first

 

Yep - head first is an out.  Jumping/hurdling is not illegal.

Correct - but some of the posts were talking about diving over - I always forget about the head first slide rule -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Headfirst is only 60 ft bases. Remember there is a whole 90ft system in LL. 

Yep, I work a lot more of the 90' than the 60', that's why I have to reminded about the head first thing :smachhead: . We do a lot of 90' 3 and 4 man crews as well in July and August. We pretty much use the CCA mechanics for that.

 

Why can't every level use the same basic priciples???? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contact above the waist is an NCAA guideline.

Well yes but its interpreted as an attempt to dislodge the ball and not an attempt to reach the base so its just interference.

Contact above the waist is not automatically flagrant or malicious in college or in most HS areas (but if that's what your group wants then enforce it that way). Noumpere, thanks for the clarification. My primary recollection of it is from the Atlanta NCAA meeting where it was a discussion topic with video footage. I'm vague on what exactly was outlined, but I did invest the $20 in the DVD so will have to go video diving tonight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contact above the waist is an NCAA guideline.

Well yes but its interpreted as an attempt to dislodge the ball and not an attempt to reach the base so its just interference.

Contact above the waist is not automatically flagrant or malicious in college or in most HS areas (but if that's what your group wants then enforce it that way). Noumpere, thanks for the clarification. My primary recollection of it is from the Atlanta NCAA meeting where it was a discussion topic with video footage. I'm vague on what exactly was outlined, but I did invest the $20 in the DVD so will have to go video diving tonight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Back to the OP:

 

The issue is not one of safety OR baseball (or whatever). The award for OBS gives the runner the right to advance without being put out, but he must continue to run the bases legally. He may not interfere, contact maliciously, miss a base, or (as in this case) dive over a fielder as he completes his award. If he does ANY of those, the award is nullified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the OP:

 

The issue is not one of safety OR baseball (or whatever). The award for OBS gives the runner the right to advance without being put out, but he must continue to run the bases legally. He may not interfere, contact maliciously, miss a base, or (as in this case) dive over a fielder as he completes his award. If he does ANY of those, the award is nullified.

 

 

 I'm not sure I understand your point. In the OP, in my opinion, there was NOT OBS, because F2 had possession of the ball, and none was called. The runner dove over the fielder, which is not allowed by FED rule. My question for you is: Why do you think FED has diving over a fielder as illegal, and an out ? You don't believe that rule is in place for the safety of the participants ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the OP:

 

The issue is not one of safety OR baseball (or whatever). The award for OBS gives the runner the right to advance without being put out, but he must continue to run the bases legally. He may not interfere, contact maliciously, miss a base, or (as in this case) dive over a fielder as he completes his award. If he does ANY of those, the award is nullified.

 

 

 I'm not sure I understand your point. In the OP, in my opinion, there was NOT OBS, because F2 had possession of the ball, and none was called. The runner dove over the fielder, which is not allowed by FED rule. My question for you is: Why do you think FED has diving over a fielder as illegal, and an out ? You don't believe that rule is in place for the safety of the participants ?

My point was to address the suggestion made (and assumed) in posts 8 and 9 that in the OP we have a "conflict" between an OBS award and a diving infraction.

 

Forget the OP. Suppose a case of genuine OBS and genuine diving over the obstructing fielder. There is no conflict, because a base award is not a guarantee to acquire the awarded base, but rather the right to advance legally without liability to be put out by the defense. If a runner chooses NOT to advance legally (diving, MC, missing a base, etc.), he may be called out by the umpire. No conflict.

 

Of course, the diving rule is a safety rule, but that's quite irrelevant to my point. I was illuminating the (often misunderstood) meaning of a base award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...