Jump to content

Thoughts on a play at the plate we had yesterday.


GreyhoundAggie
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3217 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

I wanted to get y'alls thoughts and opinions on a play we had in a select tourney yesterday.

Fed rules, 16 yr olds. I am BU.

Outs don't matter. R2.

Batter hits a single to F9. F9 comes up gunning to home. Ball is cut and then relayed to F2. R2 is beat by quite a bit. R2 ends up making contact pretty high on the catcher and hits him in the throat area. I don't believe he intentionally tried to truck him, but there was a lot of contact.

The ball comes loose and the catcher is on the ground. Offensive HC comes down to discuss the play.

My partner rules that he is calling the kid out for the contact, but no ejection. The offensive HC disagrees "He was trying to go around him, etc. He slid feet first" which i don't think he did since his shoulder and arm are what made contact with F2.

The general question is not whether or not this was MC, its a HTBT I know.

The question is whether you can have an out for the contact and knocking the ball loose without having MC. Can you have interference on a play like this? The catcher had clear possession of the ball and had every right to block off the plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

The question is whether you can have an out for the contact and knocking the ball loose without having MC. Can you have interference on a play like this? The catcher had clear possession of the ball and had every right to block off the plate.

​Yes, you can have an out per 8-4-2c with or without MC. Whether R2's actions are MC is HTBT. You have to balance the need to call contact like that tightly (potentially OOO) and seeing injury prevention action (potentially UOO). IMO, the potential for an escalation exists either way, so I go with my gut feeling.

8-4-2c also includes the possibility of interference if there were other runners to be play on. And if runners were taking extra bases because the ball was knocked loose on a 8-4-2c out, I'd call interference too and return them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many think the only options are MC or "nothing."  As ricka points out, you can get an out for "failing to legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" (or whatever the specific words are).  It also covers leaping and diving over a fielder, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, was definitely sure about the leaping and diving part. Just haven't had occasions very often to get the out on a collision like this.

​8-4-2 covers both, but the infractions are different. Trucking the catcher is runner INT (and often MC); leaping/diving are illegal attempts to avoid and yield an out, but the ball remains live unless they are also INT (it's possible to leap over a fielder without hindering him at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...