Collision at the plate - video

[JaxRolo]

Wow. I believe that those that say it's MC are misinterpreting a TASO interpretation.

I don't think I have seen an actual rule cited here.

What I see is new guys arguing with proven veterans.

I have communicated with3 friends that are TASO umpires and none of them see MC.

[Thunderheads]

TASO has MC here ?!?!

 

I just don't see what the argument is here? 

 

FED=OBS (period)

OBR=Nothing (period)

 

There is NOTHING malicious in this play, ....it's called a train wreck ...... good lord

[GreyhoundAggie]

Guys,

 

I have consulted with Jay Evans. The official rules interpreter for TASO.

 

His response.

 

"I have malicious contact.  The runner should have been sliding since it was going to be a close play."

 

You may think him wrong for his interpretation, but you see why I am pushing MC on this one. It is the way we have been instructed to enforce it.

 

The runner does not have to slide. I agree, but he must slide OR avoid contact.

 

Before the new interpretation put in place by TASO this year, the rules guy for my local chapter said he would have had OBS, but they want us to get MC on this play now.

[Mike Prince]

Guys,

 

I have consulted with Jay Evans. The official rules interpreter for TASO.

 

His response.

 

"I have malicious contact.  The runner should have been sliding since it was going to be a close play."

 

You may think him wrong for his interpretation, but you see why I am pushing MC on this one. It is the way we have been instructed to enforce it.

 

The runner does not have to slide. I agree, but he must slide OR avoid contact.

 

Before the new interpretation put in place by TASO this year, the rules guy for my local chapter said he would have had OBS, but they want us to get MC on this play now.

 

 

So not only does the runner need to avoid contact initiated by F2, he must slide?  Holy crap.

 

8-4-2e. states that a runner is out when he initiates MC.  I don't see that here (if you see it enlighten me where it is)  so that should supersede what IMO is a ridiculous interp.

[bam]

FED - obstruction

 

NCAA - ?

 

OBR - play on, playa

[JaxRolo]

Guys,

 

I have consulted with Jay Evans. The official rules interpreter for TASO.

 

His response.

 

"I have malicious contact.  The runner should have been sliding since it was going to be a close play."

 

You may think him wrong for his interpretation, but you see why I am pushing MC on this one. It is the way we have been instructed to enforce it.

 

The runner does not have to slide. I agree, but he must slide OR avoid contact.

 

Before the new interpretation put in place by TASO this year, the rules guy for my local chapter said he would have had OBS, but they want us to get MC on this play now.

 

How could he avoid contact? he throw brought F2 right into his path! The runner is not watching where the ball is going to be. He has to look at where he is going. If anything it is OBS. As it is I have nothing.

 

For him to say 'The runner should have been sliding is completely wrong"  You can tell him I said so.

[UmpJM]

Greyhound,

 

There is no rule that requires the runner to slide or avoid contact in this situation.

 

No fielder is "in the immediate act of making a play upon him".

 

JM

[bam]

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.

I've got to tell you - I'm baffled by this statement.  YOU are advocating for the runner to make the umpire's job easier by sliding. 

 

I don't get it. 

 

Even if the bases were loaded and FPSR were ini effect, the fielder is not protected in front of a base.  The rule is very clear. A runner doesn't have to slide.  If a player without possession of the ball steps inito his path, in FED, by rule, it's OBS.  In OBR, if the ball brings the fielder into the runners path, it's a train wreck. 

 

What's the NCAA ruling here?  I'm thinking train wreck?

 

Also, why is the umpire banging the player out in this situation?  The catcher never had the ball.  There was a couple shoves and then the hammer. 

 

Edited ^^ - now I see the pitcher tag runner.  N/M

[GreyhoundAggie]

NCAA this is MC.

 

The umpire banged him because I believe he ruled he never touched the plate, and the pitcher gets the ball and tags him.

 

There are definitely differing opinions on this one. I don't believe I can add anything more.

This is why I love this forum. Great chance to discuss this type of stuff.

[Welpe]

The runner does not have to slide. I agree, but he must slide OR avoid contact.

 

So how does he avoid contact he didn't create? Do you understand why this is such a bad interpretation? Under Federation rules, this interpretation is not only wrong, it is patently absurd. I'd rather be gigged for failing to follow such a silly mandate rather than actually enforce it.

 

The coaches hold the cards in Texas and I guarantee that the vast majority of them don't want this called MC.

[scrounge]

Guys,

 

I have consulted with Jay Evans. The official rules interpreter for TASO.

 

His response.

 

"I have malicious contact.  The runner should have been sliding since it was going to be a close play."

 

You may think him wrong for his interpretation, but you see why I am pushing MC on this one. It is the way we have been instructed to enforce it.

 

The runner does not have to slide. I agree, but he must slide OR avoid contact.

 

Before the new interpretation put in place by TASO this year, the rules guy for my local chapter said he would have had OBS, but they want us to get MC on this play now.

 

Again, with all due respect, that interpretation is absolute garbage IMO. It's introducing his own personal sensibilities about when to slide in direct conflict with the plain text of the rule book. The runner had every reason to believe he had a clear path to the base. But the catcher - not maliciously, not intentionally - jumps into him and makes contact. How can the runner avoid contact that is unavoidable and CREATED by the contact of F2???

 

So, basically, the TASO interpretation per Jay is slide or fall prey to being ejected for any contact, avoidable or not, no matter who creates it. That's a ridiculous definition of malicious to me.

[UmpJM]

Bam,

 

NCAA this is MC.

 

....

 

           

 

Despite Greyhound's hilarious assertion, in an NCAA game this would be a "train wreck" - and the runner called out because he was tagged (by the pitcher) before touching home plate.

 

TASO is free to screw up HS games in their state, but they don't have Jack to say about NCAA.

 

JM

[GreyhoundAggie]

I would think this falls under NCAA "contact above the waist" that is why I said NCAA is MC.

 

I could easily be wrong, but that is why I said that.

 

Since NCAA is the one code that defines MC fairly clearly.

[Fittske24]

Here is the NCAA's take on this. The video is of a similar play that occurred in 2010. It is used to explain the rule change for flagrent collision for the 2011-2012 rules cycle. The flagrent collision rule remains the same for 2013.

Fyi....For those that think that R3 intentionally runs F2 over, remember these are D1 athletes in this video.....bigger, faster, stronger, than in the OP. so it is a much more violent collision.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cV4vgJVy2is&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcV4vgJVy2is

[Forest Ump]

Be careful with your terminology Greyhound. There's no MC in NCAA baseball. That term is not used. There is a collision rule but it has different criteria for enforcing.

[GreyhoundAggie]

Thanks Forest. I am not an NCAA umpire, so I didn't know that They just discussed the NCAA rule with us at the state meeting and mentioned contact above the waist.

 

So Fittske.

 

Would the NCAA have called the runner out in the OP in your opinion?

[noumpere]

Thanks Forest. I am not an NCAA umpire, so I didn't know that They just discussed the NCAA rule with us at the state meeting and mentioned contact above the waist.

 

So Fittske.

 

Would the NCAA have called the runner out in the OP in your opinion?

I'm not Fittske but I'll answer that I would not have an out on the collision at any level.  It all depends on whether the runner touched the plate or not.

[UmpJM]

I would think this falls under NCAA "contact above the waist" that is why I said NCAA is MC.

 

I could easily be wrong, but that is why I said that.

 

Since NCAA is the one code that defines MC fairly clearly.

 

Greyhound,

 

The NCAA rule you reference ONLY applies when the fielder "...clearly is in possession of the ball..." - so it's not relevant to the play in the OP.

 

JM

[GreyhoundAggie]

JM,

 

The video Fittske posted is from an NCAA training, and they would have fragrant collision and the catcher did not have possession of the ball. So how is that any different?

[Thunderheads]

Fittske's video it TOTALLY different than the OP ....

 

That R3 lowers his shoulder clearly here ....

[GreyhoundAggie]

But the ruling and interpretation in NCAA is based on contact above the waist (my understanding) not whether he lowered his shoulder.

 

That is why I ask.

[Thunderheads]

But the ruling and interpretation in NCAA is based on contact above the waist (my understanding) not whether he lowered his shoulder.

 

That is why I ask.

that's not what Fittsle said .......

 

The flagrent collision rule remains the same for 2013

[Fittske24]

NCAA Collision Rule

SECTION 7. The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who clearly is in possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge:

If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession of the ball, the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).

PENALTY—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious before the runner touches the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

PENALTY—If the contact is flagrant or malicious after the runner touches the base (plate), the runner is safe, but is ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner.

If the contact occurs after a preceding runner touches home plate, the preceding runner is safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

(4) If the runner’s path to the base is blocked and (1), (2) and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact (see Rule 2-54, Obstruction).

Now looking at the NCAAs rule.....

In order for a runner to be protected by the collision rule, he must satisfy conditions 1, 2 and 3

Was the fielder "clearly in possession of the ball"? NO

(1)Was the runner making an actual attempt to reach the base (plate). Yes

Now the rule book says "If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

This is where judgement comes in.... Can this runner avoid contact with F2 as the throw pulls F2 into the base path? In my judgement I say No. So in my judgement the collision was unavoidable and contact was neither flagrant or malicious.

Now lets look at (2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

The fielder never has the ball so the collision, even though is above the waist, is not an attempt to dislodge the ball.

Now (3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.

In my judgement, R3 has a clear path to the plate right up until F2 enters into his path trying to field the throw. I don't think he has a chance to slide or avoid without contact happening with the catcher.

Now for (4) If the runner’s path to the base is blocked and (1), (2) and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact (see Rule 2-54, Obstruction).

So in my judgement I have unavoidable contact, and possible obstruction on the catcher.

As you can see, there are elements of judgement with this play. You may use your judgement and deem the contact avoidable. Which in that case you have the runner out on the flagrant collision. The NCAA does give you rules to support your decision either way.

[Fittske24]

But the ruling and interpretation in NCAA is based on contact above the waist (my understanding) not whether he lowered his shoulder.

 

That is why I ask.

It's not just contact above the waist. It's also can the contact be avoided. In the NCAA video, the ruling is that the contact could be avoided. That's why it is ruled flagrant. Contact above the waist alone does not satisfy the requirements of a flagrant collision.

[noumpere]

But the ruling and interpretation in NCAA is based on contact above the waist (my understanding) not whether he lowered his shoulder.

 

That is why I ask.

It's also based on "and initiated by the runner".

 

Fittske beat me to posting the rule..

 

sometimes it is shortened to what you say, but that's done or at least should be done with the understanding that we really mean the whole rule.  A lesson for all (or at least for me) -- when you are teaching use the correct and full information; don't cover rules not in effect (ex. college rules at a HS clinic); when you are learning -- go look it up yourself and then use the interp you were taught in that light.