The Trainwreck - at all levels and in all codes

[sdix00]

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

[Thunderheads]

Steve, this is quite the scenario, and a great question.  However, .... it's awfully difficult to sort this out without seeing it (video, etc) .....

 

That said ... I think this needs to be under the discretion of the umpire on a case by case basis, and each ruleset should encourage that.  A trainwreck is VERY MUCH a possibility at anytime, and there doesn't have to be anyone at fault either.  I don't think any of the codes needs to have certain rules that MUST be administered in such a situation, regardless of how safety oriented NFHS can be ....

 

my .02 ....

 

On edit:

after re-reading this ....the way I see it in my head .....  there was no obstruction as F2 had the ball, .... R2 legally slid ......  it doesn't look like INT either ....

 

based on the info I have .... I'd say the play stands in all codes.   Of course I'm probably wrong, but .........

[LMSANS]

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

I had this almost exact scenario 2 years ago in a JV game.  My only difference was that the throw was at least 20 ft up the 3B line and there was no slide by R2.  Total train wreck.  R2 landed in foul territory, ball hit me in the foot and F1 grabbed the rebound on the 1B side, F2 was flat on the baseline.  R2 crawled to and touched the plate.  DHC came out screaming for an ejection.  If anything I had OBS, but I leaned towards train wreck.  F2 played 2 more innings before they took him out.  He wound up with a concussion and was out 6 weeks (V coach told me 2 days later at his game.)

 

The real problem was the perception caused by the fact that R2 was about 6'2" and 200 lbs, F2 was 5'5" and 150 lbs.

 

You have to see the circumstances to make that call.

[blue23ll]

If we take the description at face value, I have a train wreck under all codes. Right or wrong, I always say, if the players are all doing what they are supposed to be doing, sometimes there are collisions on the field that don't get penalized.

[Jimurray]

If we take the description at face value, I have a train wreck under all codes. Right or wrong, I always say, if the players are all doing what they are supposed to be doing, sometimes there are collisions on the field that don't get penalized.

It would seem FED wants this called as obstruction:

8.3.2 SITUATION K:

F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges towards the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.

RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal.

[basejester]

Out on the tag.  In LL, if the runner slowed down or diverted to mitigate the collision before F2 possessed the ball, I could have obstruction.  But I don't see that in the original description.

[basejester]

 

If we take the description at face value, I have a train wreck under all codes. Right or wrong, I always say, if the players are all doing what they are supposed to be doing, sometimes there are collisions on the field that don't get penalized.

It would seem FED wants this called as obstruction:

8.3.2 SITUATION K:

F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges towards the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.

RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal.

 

I don't think that's the same situation.  The fielder cannot "drop" the ball if he never possesses it.

[Jimurray]

@basejester, I think your right. The OP has a dropped ball and the caseplay has a missed ball. I missed that.

[JaxRolo]

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

 

When did F2 have the ball? When you say dropped did he already have the ball or did the ball just hit the glove and dropped?

[sdix00]

 

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

 

When did F2 have the ball? When you say dropped did he already have the ball or did the ball just hit the glove and dropped?

 

 

 

I realized after a couple comments that that was ambiguous, but I didn't want to confuse the issue further by adding details. 

 

It seems to me that if F2 had the ball prior to the collision that no one would argue the ruling. 

 

So, let's say F2 never secured the ball. And yes, I know you can't drop something you never touched, hence the ambiguity in the OP. 

[grayhawk]

 

 

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

 

When did F2 have the ball? When you say dropped did he already have the ball or did the ball just hit the glove and dropped?

 

 

 

I realized after a couple comments that that was ambiguous, but I didn't want to confuse the issue further by adding details. 

 

It seems to me that if F2 had the ball prior to the collision that no one would argue the ruling. 

 

So, let's say F2 never secured the ball. And yes, I know you can't drop something you never touched, hence the ambiguity in the OP. 

 

 

If that's the case, it's still a trainwreck in OBR, but Obstruction in Fed.  Jimurray's case play is the right cite.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

R2.  No outs. 

B2 hits to F9 who fires home.   F2 set up off the baseline but F9's off-line throw takes F2 into R2's path and there is a collision causing F2 to drop the ball and R2 to miss the plate.  R2 slides legally but can not avoid F2.   F2 picks up the ball and tags R2.     F2 could not have fielded the off-line throw from any other position. 

 

 

What do you have at each level?

OBR

NCAA

NFHS

LL

 

 

Do you believe, at the end of the day, that this should be officiated differently at any level?  Do the rules/interps support enforcing this differently?  Are there any other factors to consider here?

 

When did F2 have the ball? When you say dropped did he already have the ball or did the ball just hit the glove and dropped?

 

 

 

I realized after a couple comments that that was ambiguous, but I didn't want to confuse the issue further by adding details. 

 

It seems to me that if F2 had the ball prior to the collision that no one would argue the ruling. 

 

So, let's say F2 never secured the ball. And yes, I know you can't drop something you never touched, hence the ambiguity in the OP. 

 

 

If that's the case, it's still a trainwreck in OBR, but Obstruction in Fed.  @Jimurray 's case play is the right cite.

 

I agree.

[Fittske24]

First..... There is no such thing as a "train wreck". For newer umpires that may read this thread should understand that the term "train wreck" should never be used in explanation to a coach or manager. I prefer to use "unavoidable contact" to describe this type of play.

Now let's look at the rules that come into play here for all codes:

Obstruction

Interference

Collision rule (if applicable)

Malicious contact (if applicable)

What we know from the OP is F2 IS in secure possession of the ball at the time of contact AND R2's slide IS legal.

Because of this, obstruction, interference, malicious contact and collision rules on,the initial collision, do not apply. In all codes. This applies to the initial contact. After the initial contact, obstruction or interference are still a possibility if the play has not terminated at home plate. If F2 lays on, prohibits the progress of R2 after the collision or vice versa, obstruction or interference comes back into play.

Mechanics note: even though this contact is unavoidable or incidental, the plate umpire must give this play a "that's nothing" mechanic to show that the contact was neither obstruction or interference. Making no signal will draw unnecessary confusion as to the status if the contact.

[maven]

First..... There is no such thing as a "train wreck". For newer umpires that may read this thread should understand that the term "train wreck" should never be used in explanation to a coach or manager. I prefer to use "unavoidable contact" to describe this type of play.

Now let's look at the rules that come into play here for all codes:

Obstruction

Interference

Collision rule (if applicable)

Malicious contact (if applicable)

What we know from the OP is F2 IS in secure possession of the ball at the time of contact AND R2's slide IS legal.

Because of this, obstruction, interference, malicious contact and collision rules on,the initial collision, do not apply. In all codes. This applies to the initial contact. After the initial contact, obstruction or interference are still a possibility if the play has not terminated at home plate. If F2 lays on, prohibits the progress of R2 after the collision or vice versa, obstruction or interference comes back into play.

Mechanics note: even though this contact is unavoidable or incidental, the plate umpire must give this play a "that's nothing" mechanic to show that the contact was neither obstruction or interference. Making no signal will draw unnecessary confusion as to the status if the contact.

 

I agree: "unavoidable contact" is a better expression than "train wreck," which does not imply a ruling.

 

Be careful with a "that's nothing" mechanic in plays at the plate, which might suggest ruling the runner safe, even one who might not have touched the plate yet. In some cases it will be clear enough, as when the collision occurs 10 feet up the line. If you rule the runner out, "that's nothing" might also cause confusion.

[dumbdumb]

IMHO no matter how one writes a rule, there is always going to be some point at which one just has to umpire and let the chips fall where they may.

 

IMHO with the crash situation, one has to give the runner the ability to run straight through home plate (not forced to slide) just like at first base, and the closest area to the plate is not the back point, that would be unfair to the runner, it is straight down the line. If, and here is the judgement, if fielding of the ball causes the fielder to encroach into the runners path in any way, shape or form, it becomes a judgement call as to whether the runner, running full steam ahead, can somehow prevent contact. Now, if the judgement is whether he can avoid contact, is that 1 step, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. at full speed ahead and are we going to have to write a rule and make the umpire count the steps. Of course with IR we can go back and count them now. If the runner is far enough away, should he have to veer, unfair to the runner, or should he be allowed to run straight ahead as long as he does not go into a plowing, lower the shoulder knock your block off and make you go ass over tin cups to go through you or veer off to get you. If it is just a straight up, put your hands on your chest or out in front pushing motion, should that be allowed for the runner to help deflect some contact to himself at the very last minute? To force a Charlie Brown slide way out in front of the RH batters box is unfair to the runner also. Also, if that Charlie Brown slide is done at the last moment, there is a very good possibility of a broken ankle.

 

Or, should the fielder have to set up out of the way (out of the baseline) and if the ball is thrown high, rather than back up until he can catch the throw which takes him right into the baseline, where he will be in a contact situation with the runner and cause a contact situation, just let him jump as high as he can while out of the baseline and just hope he can catch the ball, otherwise it just goes over his head and a fielder backing up the play has to field the ball?

 

Otherwise, everyone just has to accept the fact there will be some train-wreck situations where everyone is doing their job, which might cause contact, and in certain situations that contact may be severe (just like legal screening plays in basketball) and severe mean somebody might get hurt and have to go to the hospital, depending upon the severity, and as long as the principles of common sense and fair play were involved, then the situation is just an unfortunate train wreck and a no call (there's that basketball terminology again) situation.

 

Otherwise, just make the rule state that we just use the old beer league running where everyone goes in standing up, or a rule where everyone has to slide even if it is a Charlie Brown slide 30 feet up the baseline. Any rule written is OK by me, just write it and enforce it and back the umpires.

 

However, back to my first line, no matter the rule written, there will be certain situations that occur outside of a million case book plays, i.e. 1 million and one, where the umpire just has to umpire.

[basejester]

First..... There is no such thing as a "train wreck". For newer umpires that may read this thread should understand that the term "train wreck" should never be used in explanation to a coach or manager. I prefer to use "unavoidable contact" to describe this type of play.

 

In this particular scenario, no one has an obligation to avoid the collision, but either could choose to avoid it.

 

"Blue, he could have avoided the contact by moving 2 feet in either direction."

 

Now what?

[Fittske24]

In this particular scenario, no one has an obligation to avoid the collision, but either could choose to avoid it.

 

"Blue, he could have avoided the contact by moving 2 feet in either direction."

 

Now what?

Based on the play in the OP, I'm telling that coach in a NCAA game "he is not obligated to avoid. 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 plate. In this case the runner made a legal slide, there is no violation."

In a FED game I'm telling the coach "the contact was judged to be unavoidable, and since the runners slide was legal and the contact was not malicious, there is no violation."

[maven]

First..... There is no such thing as a "train wreck". For newer umpires that may read this thread should understand that the term "train wreck" should never be used in explanation to a coach or manager. I prefer to use "unavoidable contact" to describe this type of play.

  In this particular scenario, no one has an obligation to avoid the collision, but either could choose to avoid it.   "Blue, he could have avoided the contact by moving 2 feet in either direction."   Now what? He could have avoided contact by giving himself up, stopping, or running to LF. he's not obligated to avoid contact if he slides legally. maven

[mstaylor]

The problem with these plays is everyone has their version of obstruction and MC. NCAA is saying that contact above the waist is likely MC. Fed is saying he can't block without the ball. LL is saying he had to have the ball and be ready to make a tag. MLB, who knows, haven't made the new rule yet.<br />Now if you have a trainwreck, tell the coach everybody was doing what they were supposed to being doing so the contact is incidental.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[grozzly]

I had this situation one time in my very first games (last year.....   )
The runner went into the catcher about 10ft up the 3rd base line. My interrogation is: as he bumped the catcher with his left shoulder (similar to a very close play at the plate), do you consider this as a "legal slide" or a malicious contact? Clearly, the runner's intention was to make the catcher drop the ball as the contact occurs.

[Rich Ives]

Careful - it can be an illegal slide but not malicious contact.