Pray this never happens in your game!

[grayhawk]

 

This should be fun.

[maven]

Appeal R3.

[bam]

Any idea what the call on the field was?

[Replacematt]

Appeal R3.

 

Yep.

[bam]

Does anyone know if this was a force play?

NM. I watched it some more - no one on 1st. But what if there were?

Edited May 14, 2014 by bam

[Replacematt]

Does anyone know if this was a force play?

NM. I watched it some more - no one on 1st. But what if there were?

 

F2 probably wouldn't have set up the way he did.

 

R3's actions would still be legal.

[CricketChapman]

1. No MC on R3.

2. R3 liable to be put out on appeal.

3. If R3 is out for out 3, R2's run does not count.

Where the hell did PU go to?

[zm1283]

Does anyone know if this was a force play?

NM. I watched it some more - no one on 1st. But what if there were?

 

This is a big enough mess without introducing other scenarios. Lets sort out the play as it happened first because I'm sure everyone can learn from it. 

[JaxRolo]

PU went to get a sandwich

[JaxRolo]

Did F2 have the ball or did he block the plate without the ball?

[Thunderheads]

Appeal R3.

ok, it took me a second, but ....

R3 re-touched after R2 scored, yes?

 

I'm not sure I have MC here.  however, doesn't 8.4.2 c say the runner must avoid illegal contact (cite not great probably , sorry)

[grayhawk]

Appeal R3.

ok, it took me a second, but ....

R3 re-touched after R2 scored, yes?

I'm not sure I have MC here. however, doesn't 8.4.2 c say the runner must avoid illegal contact (cite not great probably , sorry)

8-4-2c says:

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him

The question is, what was not legal about his attempt to avoid the fielder?

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Appeal R3.

ok, it took me a second, but ....

R3 re-touched after R2 scored, yes?

I'm not sure I have MC here. however, doesn't 8.4.2 c say the runner must avoid illegal contact (cite not great probably , sorry)

 

8-4-2c says:

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him

The question is, what was not legal about his attempt to avoid the fielder?

 

like I said, ...wrong cite

I don't have NFHS rules anything on me now, so I'm stabbing in the dark ....this is referring to "jumping over/diving over" a fielder I think ....

 

I guess I'm saying ... he didn't avoid him at all, but this could easily be a 'train-wreck' as well...

[GreyhoundAggie]

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

 

I know I may be crucified for that, but that is the case. Hard for me to not protect the catcher there when he is legally doing his job.

[Thunderheads]

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

 

I know I may be crucified for that, but that is the case. Hard for me to not protect the catcher there when he is legally doing his job.

wait a minute ....... you can't have it both ways, can you?

[maven]

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

 

I disagree on 2 accounts:

 

1. No rule requires a runner to slide. Period. It's a good way to avoid being liable for MC, and it's often advisable, but it simply is never required. And by "never," I actually mean, never.

2. If the runner had been gunning for F2, there would have been much more significant contact than we actually observe. Don't get fooled by the slow motion: in football we learn that in slow motion everything looks like a foul. R3 ran through the mitt here and spun F2 around. The contact in real time was brief and incidental, and F2 immediately resumed play. No intent, no malice, no MC.

[Thunderheads]

 

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

 

I disagree on 2 accounts:

 

1. No rule requires a runner to slide. Period. It's a good way to avoid being liable for MC, and it's often advisable, but it simply is never required. And by "never," I actually mean, never.

2. If the runner had been gunning for F2, there would have been much more significant contact than we actually observe. Don't get fooled by the slow motion: in football we learn that in slow motion everything looks like a foul. R3 ran through the mitt here and spun F2 around. The contact in real time was brief and incidental, and F2 immediately resumed play. No intent, no malice, no MC.

 

maven,

you have nothing here .... trainwreck so to speak w/ R3 and F2?

[grayhawk]

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

I disagree on 2 accounts:

1. No rule requires a runner to slide. Period. It's a good way to avoid being liable for MC, and it's often advisable, but it simply is never required. And by "never," I actually mean, never.

2. If the runner had been gunning for F2, there would have been much more significant contact than we actually observe. Don't get fooled by the slow motion: in football we learn that in slow motion everything looks like a foul. R3 ran through the mitt here and spun F2 around. The contact in real time was brief and incidental, and F2 immediately resumed play. No intent, no malice, no MC.

maven,

you have nothing here .... trainwreck so to speak w/ R3 and F2?

Not answering for Maven, but that's what I have. Though, it's more of a model train wreck. Really not that much contact. No way for R3 to avoid F2 given how F2 moved in front of him at the last instant.

[maven]

maven,

you have nothing here .... trainwreck so to speak w/ R3 and F2?

Yup.

 

If we had a non-slo-mo video, I don't think anyone would even be talking about MC.

 

The only fishy thing about the contact is R3's extending his arms. But it's not enough (if you like, talk to him about that).

 

You want MC to be big, and if possible clearly non-baseball. I recall one I called where the runner was a linebacker for his school's football team (6'1", 240), and he lowered his shoulder into F2 (who did not have the ball, so it was OBS too), who was 6'3", 185. Knocked him up in the air and back 8 feet from the plate.

 

When I reported in to the AD the following day (as my state requires), he said, "I wish he hit kids that hard on the football field!"

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

I have R3 for malicious contact. He came in high when there was definitely a play being made there.

He should have been sliding into home to avoid trucking the catcher. Im not saying he intentionally trucked the kid, but never the less the catcher had possession of the ball and was legally blocking the plate and the runner hit him high.

I disagree on 2 accounts:

1. No rule requires a runner to slide. Period. It's a good way to avoid being liable for MC, and it's often advisable, but it simply is never required. And by "never," I actually mean, never.

2. If the runner had been gunning for F2, there would have been much more significant contact than we actually observe. Don't get fooled by the slow motion: in football we learn that in slow motion everything looks like a foul. R3 ran through the mitt here and spun F2 around. The contact in real time was brief and incidental, and F2 immediately resumed play. No intent, no malice, no MC.

 

maven,

you have nothing here .... trainwreck so to speak w/ R3 and F2?

 

Not answering for Maven, but that's what I have. Though, it's more of a model train wreck. Really not that much contact. No way for R3 to avoid F2 given how F2 moved in front of him at the last instant.

 

I must admit, I did have that first also, and .... understood right away that the slo-mo view is probably different than real time.

[Thunderheads]

can we discuss R3    ??

[Replacematt]

can we discuss R3    ??

 

Sure. I think he's a great kid.

[Thunderheads]

 

can we discuss R3    ??

 

Sure. I think he's a great kid.

 

LOL @Matt!

Sorry ....I meant the appeal comments! Sorry

[maven]

Yes: the defense should appeal R3's missed base, which has the potential to negate both runs.

 

Is that what you wanted to discuss, Jeff? Just making sure I'm doing this right.

[Thunderheads]

Yes: the defense should appeal R3's missed base, which has the potential to negate both runs.

 

Is that what you wanted to discuss, Jeff? Just making sure I'm doing this right.

yes sir!

Ok maven, stay with me ...... R3 came back to touch though, yes?