7.13 Violation - Overturn

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v34855847

[BigUmpire]

By the new rule he is SAFE.

Plate umpire hesitated BECAUSE we was unsure on what to call.

Old habits die hard for both player and umpires.

[maven]

"By rule Ryan could have run him over..."

 

Great. That's another EJ we'll have soon...

 

Spectacular play by F4, btw.

[bam]

"By rule Ryan could have run him over..."

 

Great. That's another EJ we'll have soon...

 

Spectacular play by F4, btw.

If by "spectacular" you mean "How the F^*K does a major league F4 allow that to happen???" I'm in perfect agreement. 

[ricka56]

At 1:03 of the video, you see the runner checking up to avoid the collision and F2 does not yet have the ball. The throw did not necessitate F2 being where he was prior to gloving the throw. By rule the runner could have legally blown F2 up, but he shouldn't be penalized if he chooses not to (which is what MLB wants...fewer collisions). If they don't call 7.13(2) on this play, they can't justify calling 7.13(1) when the runner trucks F2 needlessly.

 

Good IR review call...one of these days an on-field umpire will make this call.

[maven]

 By rule the runner could have legally blown F2 up...

 

Which rule is that?

 

7.13 (1) prohibits blowing up F2 and instructs umpires to call out any runner who does so.

 

7.13 (2) prohibits F2 from blocking the plate, but includes no permission to a runner to blow him up if he does. The penalty is just what we saw here: rule the runner safe.

 

If you had both, I would enforce 7.13 (1) first.

[thinkingaboutumping]

Has there not been a "live" call of out/safe on 7.13 yet?

 

Also, Howard never touched home....Could the defense have appealed?

[thinkingaboutumping]

 

 By rule the runner could have legally blown F2 up...

 

Which rule is that?

 

7.13 (1) prohibits blowing up F2 and instructs umpires to call out any runner who does so.

 

7.13 (2) prohibits F2 from blocking the plate, but includes no permission to a runner to blow him up if he does. The penalty is just what we saw here: rule the runner safe.

 

If you had both, I would enforce 7.13 (1) first.

 

 Huh, I thought it was that if the catcher is holding the ball (say the throw beats the runner by 40 feet) and he blocks the plate, the runner can legally run him over?

[ricka56]

 

 By rule the runner could have legally blown F2 up...

 

Which rule is that?

 

7.13 (1) prohibits blowing up F2 and instructs umpires to call out any runner who does so.

 

7.13 (2) prohibits F2 from blocking the plate, but includes no permission to a runner to blow him up if he does. The penalty is just what we saw here: rule the runner safe.

 

If you had both, I would enforce 7.13 (1) first.

 

"Blown up" may connote an intentional act (a deviation) to some, but "blown up" can happen by accident too.

 

7.13(1) prohibits a runner from deviating from his direct path to the plate to initiate contact with F2. If this runner took a direct path and made an effort to touch the plate and contact occured, then he would have complied with (1).

 

I don't think (1) and (2) were intended to outlaw all contact at the plate...that'd be unrealistic.

[maven]

"Blown up" may connote an intentional act (a deviation) to some, but "blown up" can happen by accident too.

 

7.13(1) prohibits a runner from deviating from his direct path to the plate to initiate contact with F2. If this runner took a direct path and made an effort to touch the plate and contact occured, then he would have complied with (1).

 

I don't think (1) and (2) were intended to outlaw all contact at the plate...that'd be unrealistic.

As I'm using the term, "blowing up F2" is an intentional act. I follow local custom and refer to incidental contact as a "train wreck."

 

I agree that 7.13 does not prohibit all contact including train wrecks, and 7.13 (2) specifically refers to unavoidable contact. Train wrecks still happen and are legal contact.

 

The prohibition in 7.13 (1) presupposes that F2 is playing his position legally, so that any runner intent on blowing him up would necessarily have to deviate from his path to the plate.

 

I do not read 7.13 (1) as implying permission to blow up F2 who is illegally blocking the plate, but I can see how some people might do so, on the grounds that what isn't specifically prohibited is permitted.

 

I don't think that reading is consistent with the purpose of 7.13, which aims to eliminate avoidable collisions; if it's an omission that matters (or isn't addressed in the MLBUM), then I would expect the rule to be revised to address it.

[ricka56]

I know I read (probably in some preliminary MLB explanation) that F2 blocking HP illegally absolved R3 from collisions resulting from F2's illegal act. There was a "what if" matrix that included this "what if" situation. It was probably scrubbed from any final interp. If their intention was to reduce the number of collisions, they probably didn't want to even suggest that were some intentional "blow ups"  of F2 that were legal. But the unintentional (no deviation of path/bona fide effort to score) "blow up" isn't illegal, IMO.

[zoops]

By rule it's the right call.  I know I'd be in for a SH*#e storm if I ever called that however.  

[rjt6]

IMO the rule is idiotic. I'll leave it at that.

[Larry in TN]

This new rule gives me a headache.

 

The ball arrived before the runner.  Once F2 has the ball he can block the plate, right?  Was the ruling that his blocking the plate before the ball arrived was the violation?

[mrumpiresir]

If the purpose is to prevent injuries from malicious collisions MLB could have added something to the effect of making obvious malicious contact illegal.  This is a rare time the FED rule makes more sense to me. 

[maven]

The ball arrived before the runner.  Once F2 has the ball he can block the plate, right?  Was the ruling that his blocking the plate before the ball arrived was the violation?

 

Larry, if you watch it again, I think you'll see that R1 began altering his path around F2 prior to the arrival of the ball. That triggers the rule.

 

BTW, it's the same for judging OBS at the plate in FED: F2 can set up in front of the plate without the ball all day, until a runner has to alter his path. Then it's OBS.