7.13 Violation?

[Thunderheads]

thoughts ?

[scrounge]

I think the catcher had the ball in time before any obstruction. Again, I say that this should not be subject to review.

[noumpere]

I'm not entirely up to speed on how they have been interpreting the rule this year, but I'm glad to see this was still an out.  It seems like the "right" call to me.

[maven]

I think 3 comments from 6.01/7.13 are relevant.

1. "A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score."

F2 got the ball prior to any hindrance, and thus has not violated 6.01(i)(2).

2. "In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding."

This collision was "avoidable" by rule because the runner could have slid. That means that it's more likely the RUNNER violated 6.01(i) than the catcher.

3. "The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i) (Rule 7.13), or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided."

I've got the runner out for 6.01(i) violation here, but he's out either way.

[MooseLoop]

I think 3 comments from 6.01/7.13 are relevant.

1. "A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score."

F2 got the ball prior to any hindrance, and thus has not violated 6.01(i)(2).

2. "In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding."

This collision was "avoidable" by rule because the runner could have slid. That means that it's more likely the RUNNER violated 6.01(i) than the catcher.

3. "The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with his hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of Rule 6.01(i) (Rule 7.13), or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided."

I've got the runner out for 6.01(i) violation here, but he's out either way.

4. "A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate."

The 2015 version of the home plate collision rule gives the catcher near-total freedom to block the plate, but tells the runner not to bother trucking him, because you'll be out anyway.  That's why this is the first time this year I've seen this question.

BTW, I don't think a slide would have avoided a collision on this play.  But I agree that the runner violated 6.01(i)(1) and would have been out even if he dislodged the ball.