Homeplate Contact

[Guest Dave]

What's the call?

 

 

Thank you.

[Thunderheads]

Depends on the rule set, but this isn't a pro game.  Therefore, ... 99.999% of the time, any youth leagues have collision rules.   Int his video, it looks like a HS game ..........  MC, out, and ejection

umpire: stop looking at your indicator, ....take our bucket off, and read the play properly and get into position (sorry, had to)

Edited July 21, 2015 by Thunderheads

[noumpere]

I have OBS, no MC.

[Thunderheads]

I have OBS, no MC.

he's not in front of the plate, and the runner flies an elbow

[noumpere]

I can see "intent to dislodge" (if F2 had the ball); I do not see "intent to injure."

 

And, F2's left foot in nearly on the foul line, which would mean he's entirely in the path from third to home.

[Mizzou2016]

I'd have MC on the slow motion replay under FED - there's no way that umpire saw it cleanly though with the way he was moving and with the bucket on his head.

[Thunderheads]

I can see "intent to dislodge" (if F2 had the ball); I do not see "intent to injure."

 

And, F2's left foot in nearly on the foul line, which would mean he's entirely in the path from third to home.

in Fed, what do you have here?  OBS? and no MC?  His foot is on the infield side of the line, ...blocked, probably, .....access to the plate still ....certainly

[Guest Dave]

Fed Rules - sorry meant to include that

 

some interesting interpretations.  Thank you gents

[grayhawk]

I have OBS, no MC.

While I don't think the collision was as bad as it initially looked, the runner had plenty of access to the plate, but chose to run into F2 instead.  I would be okay with an MC call, or a no call (not sure there was any intent to injure).  I would not support an OBS call on this.

[Mad Mike]

@noumpere Why would you have OBS on this? The catcher was in the act of fielding the throw here. So, are you getting OBS based on OBR 7.13? 

[Thunderheads]

@noumpere Why would you have OBS on this? The catcher was in the act of fielding the throw here. So, are you getting OBS based on OBR 7.13? 

@Mad Mike ........... FED rules

[MObetterBlue]

Not sure why PU is looking at his indicator instead of getting into position on this.  That left him way behind the play.  Not sure why he didn't go up 3BX either... 

Either way, good bye and thanks for playing.  MC to me all day long.  He dropped a shoulder/elbow into the catcher.  Come in feet first and we'd have a different story.

[BRUMP]

had access to the plate and chose to make high and unnecessary contact w F2 with his shoulder and elbow....so long kid...better luck next time

[scrounge]

Maybe or maybe not OBS to me, but doesn't matter, cause I've got MC easily.

[Thunderheads]

enclosed is where F2 is,(red marks) and where the runners generic path is (blue arrow) .......plenty of room to avoid AND have access to the plate, ........  MC, easy ...

[ElkOil]

MC all day long.  No doubt about it in FED.

[indianaumpire15]

Pretty sure I worked with this guy before 

This is an easy call if you are in the right position and paying attention.

[ZebraStripes]

MC and buh bye to the runner.

[alan2703]

runner is out and gets to watch the rest of the game from the stands

[smckin]

The MC definitely showed up when the elbow came flying out!!! SEE YA runner

[maven]

While I don't think the collision was as bad as it initially looked, the runner had plenty of access to the plate, but chose to run into F2 instead.  I would be okay with an MC call, or a no call (not sure there was any intent to injure).  I would not support an OBS call on this.

I agree with this.

No OBS in any code: for FED, F2 has not denied access to HP, as the runner and fielder are on different sides of the foul line. For OBR, I'd apply more or less the same standard to interpret "blocking the runner's path."

The collision looks worse in slow motion. Umpires are not used to working with replay much: in football, we learn that everything looks like a foul in slow motion (and every loose ball looks like a fumble rather than an incomplete pass).

That said, the runner pretty clearly intended to crash F2: his path to the plate was unobstructed, and F2 did not move into that path. With or without the elbow, the runner saw a target of opportunity, and he took it. I could support a no-call here, but I think MC is preferable, not least to teach a lesson.

The picture of an avoidable collision, which is always on the runner.

[jjb]

I've got a PU looking at his indicator, wearing his bucket and out of position on the play: is anyone surprised he missed the call?

[umpstu]

Good gosh.  How could you not have mc on this? 

[VAUmp]

I can see "intent to dislodge" (if F2 had the ball); I do not see "intent to injure."

 

And, F2's left foot in nearly on the foul line, which would mean he's entirely in the path from third to home.

Geez!  Everything you said here is 100% WRONG!

MC - Call the runner out, put the BR on First - Send the offender to the parking lot!

 

[JaxRolo]

I can see "intent to dislodge" (if F2 had the ball); I do not see "intent to injure."

 

And, F2's left foot in nearly on the foul line, which would mean he's entirely in the path from third to home.

Head first into catcher. MC and bye bye

[Umpirechick1]

I've got MC in real time and slow-mo.  F2 wasn't obstructing the plate, and the runner clearly had access.  He takes a big cut in in order to truck the catcher.  As a former catcher and a mom of a catcher, this pisses me off every time.  I'm ejecting the runner for MC without a doubt.

The other big problem is the PU is completely unprepared for the play.  Get the mask/helmet off, and get involved in the play, and know what's coming.  After the play, he does a little dance on the field, making no call at all - probably because he knows he messed up big time.  (At least, I hope that he realizes his mistake) Ridiculous.