Collision at the plate - video

[scrounge]

Welpe,

 

The TASO interpretation is MC here. Contact above the waist. Just letting you know.

 

It sucks for the runner because he may not have been able to avoid, but have to get it according to TASO.

 

This comes from Jay Evans, the TASO rules interpreter as well as the state meeting.

 

Then every catcher should jump into every runner. That would be taking this, frankly, absurd interpretation to its logical extreme.

 

With all due respect, are you sure that's the interpretation? Was that comment from Jay made in reference to this video?

[Replacematt]

I've got MC, R1 out and no run scores (MC occured before touching the plate - if it was in fact touched at all). 

 

MC does NOT require intent to injure.  If FED wanted it to only be applied in an intentional situation, it could have easily said so. 

 

Here is California's legal definition of "malice", which, while I understand is not directly applicable to baseball in general or FED in particular, is still a pretty good statement of what conduct falls within the definition of "malice":

 

"Malice" means that the person acted with intent to cause injury or that the person's conduct was despicable and was done with a willful and knowing disregard of the rights or safety of another. A person acts with knowing disregard when he or she is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences."

 

Given that the whole basis of the "malicious contact" rule in FED is to protect the players from injury; that it was pretty apparent to R1 and everyone else in the park that there was clearly possible dangerous consequences of his contact with F2; and R1 deliberatly failed to avoid those consequences, I've got a clear case of MC.

 

(And my daughter is a softball catcher for a high school team)

 

So, it requires intent, according to that definition (highlighting mine.)

 

R1 didn't deliberately do SH*# in this video before the collision. F2 moved into his path.

[Jimurray]

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

[Welpe]

Welpe,

The TASO interpretation is MC here. Contact above the waist. Just letting you know.

It sucks for the runner because he may not have been able to avoid, but have to get it according to TASO.

This comes from Jay Evans, the TASO rules interpreter as well as the state meeting.

That's all well and good. I don't see that interpretation applying herr. I still don't have MC. The runner did not initiate contact.

[GreyhoundAggie]

Welpe,

 

The TASO interpretation is MC here. Contact above the waist. Just letting you know.

 

It sucks for the runner because he may not have been able to avoid, but have to get it according to TASO.

 

This comes from Jay Evans, the TASO rules interpreter as well as the state meeting.

 

Then every catcher should jump into every runner. That would be taking this, frankly, absurd interpretation to its logical extreme.

 

With all due respect, are you sure that's the interpretation? Was that comment from Jay made in reference to this video?

I would use common sense on that one, and if I judged the catcher "jumped" in front of the batter to intentionally get plowed. But that would be very difficult.

 

No. That was the interpretation in general. I don't know if Jay has seen this video. I can try and send it to him and see if he responds.

 

Welpe,

The TASO interpretation is MC here. Contact above the waist. Just letting you know.

It sucks for the runner because he may not have been able to avoid, but have to get it according to TASO.

This comes from Jay Evans, the TASO rules interpreter as well as the state meeting.

That's all well and good. I don't see that interpretation applying herr. I still don't have MC. The runner did not initiate contact.

Once again, the runner does not have to initiate contact. It is his obligation to avoid. I understand that he did not lower his shoulder or intentionally veer into the catcher. And I also don't believe teh catcher tried to initiate contact on purpose.

 

But the interpretation for our state organization would be to eject the runner on this play.

[GreyhoundAggie]

GreyHoundAggie,

 

Same question - I assume, per TASO instructions, you would eject the catcher in this sitch then, yes?

 

JM

 

GreyHoundAggie,

 

Same question - I assume, per TASO instructions, you would eject the catcher in this sitch then, yes?

 

JM

No. I would have an ejection on the runner in this video. It is the runner's obligation to avoid contact.

 

If it was a video where I felt the catcher intentionally initiated hard contact, lowered his shoulder, etc I would absolutely get the catcher.

[UmpJM]

greyhound,

 

Why do you think it is the runner's obligation to avoid contact? There is no rule requiring him to do so in this sitch.

 

Why do you hold the runner liable for unintentional contact that the defensive player initiated, but not hold the defensive player liable for contact he (unintentionally) initiated?

 

JM

[GreyhoundAggie]

I understand your points on this one JM.

 

The interpretation of MC puts the onus on the runner to avoid the contact. If he blows up the catcher above the waist, even unintentionally, we are supposed to get him.

 

I sent the video to our state interpreter, I will post a response if I get one from him. My local chapter's rules guy confirmed MC to me on the video as well.

 

I think they may be saying that F2 is most likely to be the defenseless player and most liable to be hurt.

 

It is a state interpretation, not an official NFHS interpretation.

[Welpe]

It's his obligation to avoid contact he has no chance to actually avoid. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

Again, I don't see that interpretation applying here.

[Replacematt]

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

[Replacematt]

The interpretation of MC puts the onus on the runner to avoid the contact.

 

It is a state interpretation, not an official NFHS interpretation.

 

No, it doesn't, and if your second statement is true, I hope to DOYC your state pulls its head out of wherever it is before someone gets hurt or killed.

[Jimurray]

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

The rules are not the problem. Judgement without guidance or differing guidance is the problem. A slide inthis play makes it easy. Why didn't he slide? At some levels we know why but this looks like a game where he knows what hes doing. He would have at any other base. Eliminate the debate. Slide when you should. If you don't you are emulating the Pros.

[Replacematt]

 

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

The rules are not the problem. Judgement without guidance or differing guidance is the problem. A slide inthis play makes it easy. Why didn't he slide? At some levels we know why but this looks like a game where he knows what hes doing. He would have at any other base. Eliminate the debate. Slide when you should. If you don't you are emulating the Pros.

 

It doesn't matter why he didn't slide. He doesn't have to.

 

Your statements are strengthening the perception that you are making up rules.

[umpirebrianc]

Not sure I should really get into this...

 

 

Here is a capture from the video.

 

In HS baseball we have to go from the aspect of safety.  There shouldn't be collisions at the plate.  The obligation is on the runner to avoid this.  If here the runner slides and gets blocked from the plate I can easily call obstruction because the catcher is there without the ball.  Part of the issue is the lack of a definition in FED for malicious contact - it is never defined in the rule book.  It just says if the runner initiates malicious contact he is out and ejected.  NCAA has done a good job defining this - primarily by contact above the waist and is a good interpretation for us to use in FED.  If it is what they are doing in NCAA that at the least is what would apply to FED.

 

Does your opinion change on MC if the catcher is unconscious after the collision?  

 

This collision could have and should have been avoided.  That runner saw the catcher and knew there was probably going to be a play - he has the obligation to avoid the collision.  I have MC in this instance.  Again, in FED and NCAA we have to think of safety first.  

 

This can go even further to the FPSR, but not sure we want to open that can of worms.

[Replacematt]

Not sure I should really get into this...

 

 

 

Here is a capture from the video.

 

In HS baseball we have to go from the aspect of safety.  There shouldn't be collisions at the plate.  The obligation is on the runner to avoid this.  If here the runner slides and gets blocked from the plate I can easily call obstruction because the catcher is there without the ball.  Part of the issue is the lack of a definition in FED for malicious contact - it is never defined in the rule book.  It just says if the runner initiates malicious contact he is out and ejected.  NCAA has done a good job defining this - primarily by contact above the waist and is a good interpretation for us to use in FED.  If it is what they are doing in NCAA that at the least is what would apply to FED.

 

Does your opinion change on MC if the catcher is unconscious after the collision?  

 

This collision could have and should have been avoided.  That runner saw the catcher and knew there was probably going to be a play - he has the obligation to avoid the collision.  I have MC in this instance.  Again, in FED and NCAA we have to think of safety first.  

 

This can go even further to the FPSR, but not sure we want to open that can of worms.

 

And you are appealing to officiating the consequence, not the play.

 

It doesn't matter if there's not a scratch to the catcher or if he dies from a neck injury, the play is the relevant piece. If it's legal, then it's legal. If it's MC, then toss the runner.

 

I agree that rules are written with safety in mind...which is why we have to enforce them, not expand them of our own volition. There is no way to eliminate all risk; indeed, if you insist he slides here, then you increase the risk of injury on this play. Don't punish the runner for legal play.

[umpirebrianc]

It isn't a legal play by the runner.

[Jimurray]

 

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

The rules are not the problem. Judgement without guidance or differing guidance is the problem. A slide inthis play makes it easy. Why didn't he slide? At some levels we know why but this looks like a game where he knows what hes doing. He would have at any other base. Eliminate the debate. Slide when you should. If you don't you are emulating the Pros.  

It doesn't matter why he didn't slide. He doesn't have to.

 

Your statements are strengthening the perception that you are making up rules.

I have been nose to nose with coaches telling them that the runner doesn't have to slide. What I'm saying is that there would be no debate if this runner slid. If the ball got there a little earlier his coach would be chewing his butt when he got tagged going in standing up. I'm giving advice to coaches that if they want to eliminate the judgement of MC, at least partially, slide when appropriate. It makes the umpires job easier in real time. On video, you might have a case but the guy behind the plate won't see it till tonite over a cold one.

[UmpJM]

brian,

 

It's a perfectly legal play by the runner.

 

There is no rule that says the onus is on the runner to avoid contact in this situation.

 

The catcher moved into the runner's path because of an errant throw.

 

Under FED, the catcher has committed obstruction.

 

Just because there's contact - even "hard contact" - doesn't mean there was MC.

 

JM

[Replacematt]

I have been nose to nose with coaches telling them that the runner doesn't have to slide. What I'm saying is that there would be no debate if this runner slid. If the ball got there a little earlier his coach would be chewing his butt when he got tagged going in standing up. I'm giving advice to coaches that if they want to eliminate the judgement of MC, at least partially, slide when appropriate. It makes the umpires job easier in real time. On video, you might have a case but the guy behind the plate won't see it till tonite over a cold one.

 

So, you are advocating that runners put themselves in a disadvantageous position to make your job easier?

 

Do your job and umpire. That will involve having to make some tough judgments. If you want to coach, go be a coach.

[UmpJM]

 

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

The rules are not the problem. Judgement without guidance or differing guidance is the problem. A slide inthis play makes it easy. Why didn't he slide? At some levels we know why but this looks like a game where he knows what hes doing. He would have at any other base. Eliminate the debate. Slide when you should. If you don't you are emulating the Pros.

 

Jim,

 

I expect he didn't slide in this case because he had a clear path to the base and thought he could score before the ball got there. When the defense made a crappy throw and the catcher obstructed him chasing after it, it seemed to me he didn't really have time to slide.

 

Plus, sliding is dangerous. If you don't believe me, ask Robin Ventura.

 

JM

[Jimurray]

I have been nose to nose with coaches telling them that the runner doesn't have to slide. What I'm saying is that there would be no debate if this runner slid. If the ball got there a little earlier his coach would be chewing his butt when he got tagged going in standing up. I'm giving advice to coaches that if they want to eliminate the judgement of MC, at least partially, slide when appropriate. It makes the umpires job easier in real time. On video, you might have a case but the guy behind the plate won't see it till tonite over a cold one.

 So, you are advocating that runners put themselves in a disadvantageous position to make your job easier? Do your job and umpire. That will involve having to make some tough judgments. If you want to coach, go be a coach.

What's disadvantageous about sliding? The guy in the video did his job in real time and had nothing. Meanwhile, in slomo, we got OBS or MC making our tough judgements. You can parse the rules all you want. Real time, you will have different calls on this play and with a slide it becomes a lot simpler.

[Jimurray]

 

Let's say the ball got there a few milliseconds before it did in the video. If the runner slides, which he is not required to do, he might get under the tag. If he doesn't slide he's out if F1 holds on to the ball. The benefit of the doubt goes to calling MC when they don't slide. All he had to do was slide and this debate is over. This is not one of those train wrecks that happen up the line.

 

You are making a virtual "must-slide" rule. I don't care if he slides or not. If he committed MC (which he still can do in a slide, BTW,) then he's gone. If he doesn't, he's not. It's that simple. Adding some measure of judging MC differently if a slide occurs is not in accordance with the rules.

The rules are not the problem. Judgement without guidance or differing guidance is the problem. A slide inthis play makes it easy. Why didn't he slide? At some levels we know why but this looks like a game where he knows what hes doing. He would have at any other base. Eliminate the debate. Slide when you should. If you don't you are emulating the Pros.  

Jim,

 

I expect he didn't slide in this case because he had a clear path to the base and thought he could score before the ball got there. When the defense made a crappy throw and the catcher obstructed him chasing after it, it seemed to me he didn't really have time to slide.

 

Plus, sliding is dangerous. If you don't believe me, ask Robin Ventura.

 

JM

You have a point. We would have to look at the on deck batter to see if he was telling him to get down or not. And yes, at some levels sliding is more certain to beget injury than bumping into the catcher.

[Replacematt]

I have been nose to nose with coaches telling them that the runner doesn't have to slide. What I'm saying is that there would be no debate if this runner slid. If the ball got there a little earlier his coach would be chewing his butt when he got tagged going in standing up. I'm giving advice to coaches that if they want to eliminate the judgement of MC, at least partially, slide when appropriate. It makes the umpires job easier in real time. On video, you might have a case but the guy behind the plate won't see it till tonite over a cold one.

 So, you are advocating that runners put themselves in a disadvantageous position to make your job easier? Do your job and umpire. That will involve having to make some tough judgments. If you want to coach, go be a coach.

What's disadvantageous about sliding? The guy in the video did his job in real time and had nothing. Meanwhile, in slomo, we got OBS or MC making our tough judgements. You can parse the rules all you want. Real time, you will have different calls on this play and with a slide it becomes a lot simpler.

Parsing the rules is a necessary part of umpiring. You cannot call a play correctly without knowing what is relevant and what isn't. There is one proper call on this play in FED: OBS. By giving credence to fallacious interpretations and philosophies, you get what we have here: several people attempting to justify the improper call of MC.

[Jimurray]

I have been nose to nose with coaches telling them that the runner doesn't have to slide. What I'm saying is that there would be no debate if this runner slid. If the ball got there a little earlier his coach would be chewing his butt when he got tagged going in standing up. I'm giving advice to coaches that if they want to eliminate the judgement of MC, at least partially, slide when appropriate. It makes the umpires job easier in real time. On video, you might have a case but the guy behind the plate won't see it till tonite over a cold one.

 So, you are advocating that runners put themselves in a disadvantageous position to make your job easier? Do your job and umpire. That will involve having to make some tough judgments. If you want to coach, go be a coach.What's disadvantageous about sliding? The guy in the video did his job in real time and had nothing. Meanwhile, in slomo, we got OBS or MC making our tough judgements. You can parse the rules all you want. Real time, you will have different calls on this play and with a slide it becomes a lot simpler.Parsing the rules is a necessary part of umpiring. You cannot call a play correctly without knowing what is relevant and what isn't. There is one proper call on this play in FED: OBS. By giving credence to fallacious interpretations and philosophies, you get what we have here: several people attempting to justify the improper call of MC.

What part of HP was blocked by the catcher?

[Replacematt]

What part of HP was blocked by the catcher?

F2 impeded the runner's progress without the ball.

If you are implying that blocking has to be present for OBS, you are dead wrong.