Train Wreck, Obstruction, Interference, MC, Out?

[tankmjg24]

The following happened in a high school varsity game.  The situation is R3 and R2 with two out.  Ball is hit to right field and R3 scores easily and R2 rounds 3rd heading home.  F2 is set up entirely blocking the plate, however R2 is still a good distance from the plate.  As F2 is beginning to receive the ball, R2 starts to slide.  It was a rather deep slide and his cleat caught where the grass meets the dirt, and instead of sliding he is catapulted head first into the catcher.  The way he goes forward was shoulder down with his arms up.  By this point the catcher has secure possession of the ball as he is ran over by R2.  It was a rather forceful collision that left both players laying on the ground with R2 grabbing his ankle, and F2 kind of dazed.  I called R2 out as F2 retained possession of the ball.  While R2 did run over the catcher, I felt that he did not do it on purpose, but rather his cleat catching resulted in him going forward.  I also thought that due to the timing of everything that F2 did not obstruct the runner even though he was entirely blocking the plate.  I know this is somewhat a HTBT situation, but what does everyone think?

I am going to change the above to the catcher dropping the ball.  If he was unable to hold onto the ball, is R2 safe as the result of the train wreck, or is interference justifiable since there is contact and a drop?  

[ElkOil]

Let's start with MC since it supersedes everything else. By definition, malicious contact is contact that occurs with the intention of doing harm. Since such was not the case, there's no MC as you described it. So let's look at OBS. Did F2 alter the play or the runner's actions before he had the ball? Doesn't sound like it from your description.

And in your second scenario, I would call the runner safe if F2 dropped the ball after contact.

That's my long way of saying I agree with you.

[ricka56]

HTBT I'd like to see what caused R2 to take that "deep slide" tumble that started the collision. Did he deviate his path because F2 was blocking HP without the ball ? If so, then I'd have obstruction. If no obstruction, I don't think you can call R2 out per 8-4-2f (if F2 drops the ball) unless you judge that the contact wasn't an attempt to avoid the fielder. 

[maven]

12 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

The following happened in a high school varsity game. ...  F2 is set up entirely blocking the plate, however R2 is still a good distance from the plate.  As F2 is beginning to receive the ball, R2 starts to slide. 

The question of OBS turns on what a "good distance" is. If R2 is more than halfway to the plate, he needs to decide on a target for his slide, and that's when he needs access to the plate. It sounds as if F2 has denied him access to the plate while not in possession of the ball — certainly he has if R2 is starting to slide and F2 is still blocking the base. That's OBS in FED.

12 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

While R2 did run over the catcher, I felt that he did not do it on purpose, but rather his cleat catching resulted in him going forward. 

MC is an intentional action. If you judged that R2's action was not intentional, then it is not MC, no matter how violent the collision or how many players are injured thereby.

12 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

I am going to change the above to the catcher dropping the ball.  If he was unable to hold onto the ball, is R2 safe as the result of the train wreck, or is interference justifiable since there is contact and a drop?  

INT with a thrown ball or with a player holding the ball must be intentional. So again, given your judgment that R2's actions were not intentional, you should not rule INT here. Because it's still OBS, it is not a train wreck either (a train wreck is defined as incidental contact, possibly severe, between opponents that is not the result of any infraction by runner or fielder).

12 hours ago, ElkOil said:

By definition, malicious contact is contact that occurs with the intention of doing harm.

Careful: FED has a long and considered history of NOT defining MC. The worry is that putting it in too small a box limits our ability to apply the concept to unusual yet clear cases.

12 hours ago, ElkOil said:

So let's look at OBS. Did F2 alter the play or the runner's actions before he had the ball? Doesn't sound like it from your description.

A. That's not the only criterion of OBS.

B. Even given that one, F2 did affect the runner's actions by failing to allow him a target at which to slide. Here are the looks we want to see for FED to rule no OBS:

In both cases, the approaching runner has a target at which he can aim. He needs to make this decision before he reaches the dirt circle, so play is indeed affected by F2 illegally blocking the plate without the ball.