Jump to content

pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

BalkHawk

By BalkHawk
in Collegiate

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4225 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

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA. So get flagrant contact  

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Let's say he did come up with the ball as he was trucked. What do you have then. Let's say that he did come up with the ball and dropped it as he was trucked. What do you have then.

 

 

Then I have illegal contact per 8-7, and an out and ejection. 

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

maven
maven

What the fielder is thinking is immaterial to the call. The fielder has the right to an unmolested opportunity to field the ball, and this runner denied him that right.   Fielders can lose that righ

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

zm1283
zm1283

The runner's lane protects the fielder taking a throw at first base, not a fielder making a play on a batted ball. The B/R is still responsible for avoiding the fielder while he is making a play, but

Posted Images

BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yesterday I was watching the replay of the Miami-Viginia game from two nights ago and I kept seeing the PU not being set when the play happened at first. He was still running up the first base line when the play happens. It looks good to everyone else, but looks like fake over hustle to us umpires.

it seems that the plate umpire in this game was doing the same thing on this play and was not set for the contact when it happened.

PU was moving towards a call he had already judged, while using his mechanic. When the fight inevitably broke out he was already on top of it.

You suppose he could better serve this situation by being 20 yards away instead?

Replacematt

Replacematt

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.

They don't have that rule in NCAA. So get flagrant contact  

Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.

Let's say he did come up with the ball as he was trucked. What do you have then. Let's say that he did come up with the ball and dropped it as he was trucked. What do you have then.  

Then I have illegal contact per 8-7, and an out and ejection.

What rule says a runner must avoid contact with a fielder attempting to tag him?

 

None says he must avoid, but the one I cited states that initiating contact above the waist is illegal.

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted
I'm surprised the umpires in this NCAA game didn't get an initial MC on the BR.
They don't have that rule in NCAA.
So get flagrant contact
Already discussed. Fielder didn't possess the ball.
Let's say he did come up with the ball as he was trucked. What do you have then. Let's say that he did come up with the ball and dropped it as he was trucked. What do you have then.
Then I have illegal contact per 8-7, and an out and ejection.
What rule says a runner must avoid contact with a fielder attempting to tag him?
8-7, Collision Rule ... Matt cited it for you Edit to add: I would consider it malicious or flagrant contact when the post says 'trucked'
mjr_2013

mjr_2013

Posted
Posted

After five pages of this, I'm starting to think that fight had nothing to do with the contact.

"Hey! That's interference!"

"No, that was obstruction!!"

"INTERFERENCE!!!"

"OBSTRUCTION!!!"

BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What rule says a runner must avoid contact with a fielder attempting to tag him?

None says he must avoid, but the one I cited states that initiating contact above the waist is illegal.Is running the base path initiating? I Say the fielder initiated the contact.

I believe, though I have no official interpretation to back me, that the step and a reach protection applies to a fielder who is still attempting to field the ball, but not a fielder who flubs it but thinks it's in his glove, or who hears footsteps and gives up on the ball even though he is protected.

ALStripes17

ALStripes17

Posted
Posted

What rule says a runner must avoid contact with a fielder attempting to tag him?

None says he must avoid, but the one I cited states that initiating contact above the waist is illegal.

Is running the base path initiating? I Say the fielder initiated the contact.

I believe, though I have no official interpretation to back me, that the step and a reach protection applies toa fielder who is still attempting to field the ball.

Who all is ignoring the fact that the runner diverted from his original path down the line?

  • Like 1
BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

F1 should have bent over to pick up the ball again but we all agree that fielding the ball is what he's meant to be doing.

B/R should have ran 15 feet into foul territory, thus establishing his base path for the ensuing tag attempt. Still, without his actually interfering (I say f1's error interfered), I don't see a way to penalize him for running the bases.

BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

Yesterday I was watching the replay of the Miami-Viginia game from two nights ago and I kept seeing the PU not being set when the play happened at first. He was still running up the first base line when the play happens. It looks good to everyone else, but looks like fake over hustle to us umpires.

it seems that the plate umpire in this game was doing the same thing on this play and was not set for the contact when it happened.

PU was moving towards a call he had already judged, while using his mechanic. When the fight inevitably broke out he was already on top of it.

You suppose he could better serve this situation by being 20 yards away instead?

No, what I am saying is that if he had stopped for the play, he might have seen the runner diviate his path into F1. This way we have at least some call. I hate the fact we have "nothing" on this play.

BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

F1 should have bent over to pick up the ball again but we all agree that fielding the ball is what he's meant to be doing.

B/R should have ran 15 feet into foul territory, thus establishing his base path for the ensuing tag attempt. Still, without his actually interfering (I say f1's error interfered), I don't see a way to penalize him for running the bases.

So wait... what the heck would your ruling on this?

BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Who all is ignoring the fact that the runner diverted from his original path down the line?

What rule makes diverting from his original path illegal?

BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So wait... what the heck would your ruling on this?

^^^That isn't English.

I got nothing (especially not gold stripes) and I'm moving up the line with my hands out, shaking my head and saying "that's nothing" so everybody knows it.

  • Like 1
BT_Blue

BT_Blue

Posted
Posted

So wait... what the heck would your ruling on this?

^^^That isn't English.

I got nothing (especially not gold stripes) and I'm moving up the line with my hands out, shaking my head and saying "that's nothing" so everybody knows it.

Fair enough. Sorry about that.

UmpJM

UmpJM

Posted
Posted

 

Who all is ignoring the fact that the runner diverted from his original path down the line?

What rule makes diverting from his original path illegal?

 

 

BalkHawk,

 

Per se, nothing.

 

However, it goes to intent.

 

JM

  • Like 1
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I did see the PU's mechanics but even PU knows that he should've been set for the critical components of the play.

Go up as far as the play will allow and get set.

NCAA POE last year.

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

 

 

What rule says a runner must avoid contact with a fielder attempting to tag him?

None says he must avoid, but the one I cited states that initiating contact above the waist is illegal. Is running the base path initiating? I Say the fielder initiated the contact.

I believe, though I have no official interpretation to back me, that the step and a reach protection applies to a fielder who is still attempting to field the ball, but not a fielder who flubs it but thinks it's in his glove, or who hears footsteps and gives up on the ball even though he is protected.

 

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm not good enough at full speed to determine that the fielder isn't still trying to field the ball. How do we know he wouldn't reach back down for the ball and pick it up if he had not been ran into by the B/R? The "step and a reach" or "immediate reach" provision is there for a reason: To protect the fielder so we don't have to read his mind about whether or not he is going to try to pick it up and make a play.

 

 

Here is the full clip:

http://wapc.mlb.com/cutfour/2014/03/25/70127450/fsu-and-florida-baseball-teams-get-in-brawl

Interference all day. Runner swerved out of running lane to make contact with the fielder. Announcers are funny saying the BR had no choice but to run him over

 

This play has nothing to do with the runner's lane. The comments at the bottom of that article from fans are interesting as well. 

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

If I'm getting him for interference why wouldn't it have nothing to do with the running lane @BalkHawk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The runner's lane protects the fielder taking a throw at first base, not a fielder making a play on a batted ball. The B/R is still responsible for avoiding the fielder while he is making a play, but he doesn't have to stay in the runner's lane to do it.

  • Like 4
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

If I'm getting him for interference why wouldn't it have nothing to do with the running lane @BalkHawk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the running lane only comes into play when the ball is being thrown to first.  Since it wasn't, it wasn't. ;)

  • Like 1
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I'm surprised at the number of times the runner lane is being brought up here.  The runner's lane is probably the most irrelevant part of this play.  I hope umpires are learning from this discussion.  

 

Ruling anything having to do w/ the runner's lane here would be incorrect 100% of the time on this play.

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

 

If I'm getting him for interference why wouldn't it have nothing to do with the running lane @BalkHawk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the running lane only comes into play when the ball is being thrown to first.  Since it wasn't, it wasn't. ;)

 

this, ... ^^^^ 6.05k .... discusses a fielder taking a throw

Omega194

Omega194

Posted
Posted

Appreciate all of you for your input. Yes I am a new umpire and I am strictly participating in an effort to learn. So with that being said should this have been ruled interference du to BR initiating contact with the fielder?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...