Jump to content
Fittske24

Play at the Plate - Discuss

Recommended Posts

For me, using OBR I'm calling obstruction on the catcher.  Granted, hindsight is 20/20, and we don't get the replays on the field, but I see the catcher blocking the plate with his left leg long before the ball got to him.  If you notice, the throw actually moves him back and to the left, more into the patch of the runner attempting to advance.  So for me, it's obstruction, run scores.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he had access to the plate, and slid no where near the plate and way off to the right....

P.S.  Nice timing sir! :nod: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with the call on the field, in all codes, the runner is out. From my perspective, F2 did not block the plate illegally and moved into the line of the runner to field the throw. After the ball was loosened from his grip, he had a right to pick it up and tag the runner (both on the ground and tangled). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked from both angles and have the slow motion perspective on this play.  The catcher gave a path to the plate and  the runner did not take it.  The angle from 3rd base dugout shows the plate completely inside and the catcher pulling his right foot back to give the open path to home plate.  In FED, maybe obstruction, all other play stands, OUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kstrunk said:

I'm going with the call on the field, in all codes, the runner is out. From my perspective, F2 did not block the plate illegally and moved into the line of the runner to field the throw. After the ball was loosened from his grip, he had a right to pick it up and tag the runner (both on the ground and tangled). 

There's a case in Fed where the fielder is juggling the ball, but because he doesn't have *secure* possession, it's obstruction. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scrounge said:

There's a case in Fed where the fielder is juggling the ball, but because he doesn't have *secure* possession, it's obstruction.

Helpful. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scrounge said:

There's a case in Fed where the fielder is juggling the ball, but because he doesn't have *secure* possession, it's obstruction. 

Understood, and we could easily argue that here and win without incident.  That being said though .... the catcher was 'behind' (foul ball territory) side of the plate leaving it open and the runner went in the same direction.  That argument is also valid and could still get you the out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the ball was loose I think I have OBS in FED and NCAA. Per new note in NCAA:

2-56-

Note 6 The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered “in the act of fielding” a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether the fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. 

 

FED also requires possession of the ball to block.
 
Step and a reach only apply to batted balls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might suggest that the entire play may have been seen better if PU had rotated to his left to see the wedge between F2 and the runner. Since he was behind F2 the drop of the ball may not have been apparent. Had he been on the left hip of F2 perhaps it might have.

As far as obstruction goes, I don't see it since F2 was in the act of fielding the ball and the runner had a lane to get to the plate. Additionally, @ :53,  the video seems to show F2 grabbing the ball as additional contact with the runner occurs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I the FED case play, F2 bobbles the throw. (never had possession). Here, F2 has the ball, and it falls out during the tag attempt. I don't think that's the same. I don't have obstruction here. F2 was set up with the ball prior to R2 arriving. F2 did not impeded, nor cause R2 to veer off course without possession of the ball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I the FED case play, F2 bobbles the throw. (never had possession). Here, F2 has the ball, and it falls out during the tag attempt. I don't think that's the same. I don't have obstruction here. F2 was set up with the ball prior to R2 arriving. F2 did not impeded, nor cause R2 to veer off course without possession of the ball. 

Rich - watch it again, at :50 you can see the ball up in the air, I watched it 3x before I picked up on the ball not being in F2's possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, stkjock said:

Rich - watch it again, at :50 you can see the ball up in the air, I watched it 3x before I picked up on the ball not being in F2's possession.

hmmm maybe it was never secured...Leads me to believe I'm pretty sure I would have missed that live if I missed it after watching a few replays :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Richvee said:

hmmm maybe it was never secured...Leads me to believe I'm pretty sure I would have missed that live if I missed it after watching a few replays :D

Which leads me to believe the catcher violated the collision rule in NCAA:

b) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to be in violation if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.

Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of 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. 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. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be subject to being ejected.

Also gives me cause to call OBS in FED.

Maybe maybe not in OBR. JR allows the act of fielding to include a dropped ball but what current MLB/OBR would call I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FED answer: OBS, but it doesn't start that way.

F2 sets up here:

Screen_Shot_2017_03_22_at_9_30_49_PM.png

The umpire is in good position to see that the runner, approaching from foul territory, has a clear lane to reach the base. If F2 doesn't move until the ball arrives, and only then steps to block or turns and swipes, we'd have a legal play.

But that's not what happens. As the ball approaches, F2 pivots and steps back with his left foot, blocking the plate.

Screen_Shot_2017_03_22_at_9_31_22_PM.png

Again, the umpire is well positioned to see the OBS and rule on it: F2 has cut off the runner's access to the plate without possession of the ball (we can't see the bobble from this angle, but will shortly). Had he fielded that throw cleanly as he stepped back, this is probably legal (if we need super slo mo to see an infraction, then it's legal).

If F2 backs up farther, so that the runner now has access to the front of the plate, we have to rule on whether that satisfies the OBS rule. Given how close the runner is to the plate here — a couple steps when running — he does not have time to adjust his path to reach the newly accessible portion of the plate. I'd still have OBS in that case.

Since F2 did not field the ball cleanly, this is OBS:

Screen_Shot_2017_03_22_at_9_31_43_PM.png

Here the ball is visible above F2's shoulder. We'd like to see the umpire rotating into fair as the runner approaches the plate (he does so immediately after this frame). For FED, we'd expect the umpire to point, announce the OBS, and leave the ball live until the end of playing action, then award the runner HP and observe his touch of the base.

FWIW, I believe this play is legal in OBR, given the exclusion in the HP collision rule:

Quote

Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) (Rule 7.13(2)) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, can a catcher who can legitimately field a throw out of the baseline, intentionally drift into the baseline to still legitimately field the throw and block the baseline. Todays current NCAA video suggests yes. But in the OP the catcher did not field the throw and having failed because he did not stay out of the baseline and was impacted by the runner, should he be protected from obstruction? IMHO, F1 could have caught the ball in front of the plate and attempted a swipe tag. That he didn't and tried to block the plate while receiving the throw and was unsuccessful should not protect him from OBS in NCAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

The question is, can a catcher who can legitimately field a throw out of the baseline, intentionally drift into the baseline to still legitimately field the throw and block the baseline. Todays current NCAA video suggests yes. But in the OP the catcher did not field the throw and having failed because he did not stay out of the baseline and was impacted by the runner, should he be protected from obstruction? IMHO, F1 could have caught the ball in front of the plate and attempted a swipe tag. That he didn't and tried to block the plate while receiving the throw and was unsuccessful should not protect him from OBS in NCAA.

that's where I'm getting stuck, as I see the catcher protected with the it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw.

It seems the bobble of the ball is still part of the legitimate attempt to field the ball based on the hop, so I'm not seeing the obstruction here.

I can't tell if Maven is saying the same thing with his quote at the end of his great post, or if that's what he's replying to and essentially arguing against the highlighted part of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's where I'm getting stuck, as I see the catcher protected with the it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw.
It seems the bobble of the ball is still part of the legitimate attempt to field the ball based on the hop, so I'm not seeing the obstruction here.
I can't tell if Maven is saying the same thing with his quote at the end of his great post, or if that's what he's replying to and essentially arguing against the highlighted part of the rule.

I agree with you: I have F2 legal under OBR in his attempt to field the throw. He moves into the runner's path to field the throw, and doesn't move as he recovers the bobble. No infraction for OBR.

I am no authority on NCAA, but the language suggests that Jimurray is interpreting it correctly, and he seems to be leaning OBS here because of the fielder's failure to field the throw cleanly.

If you're keeping score at home, if I have them right the results are:

FED: OBS
NCAA: OBS
OBR: legal play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

I might suggest that the entire play may have been seen better if PU had rotated to his left to see the wedge between F2 and the runner. Since he was behind F2 the drop of the ball may not have been apparent. Had he been on the left hip of F2 perhaps it might have.

As far as obstruction goes, I don't see it since F2 was in the act of fielding the ball and the runner had a lane to get to the plate. Additionally, @ :53,  the video seems to show F2 grabbing the ball as additional contact with the runner occurs.

Disagree....   He's in a perfect (as instructed position) but when F2 makes a quick adjustment, it's too late to rotate left, and thus moving into fair territory is the best option.  Quick moves like this almost make it impossible to calculate a next move ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, alex7 said:

that's where I'm getting stuck, as I see the catcher protected with the it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw.

It seems the bobble of the ball is still part of the legitimate attempt to field the ball based on the hop, so I'm not seeing the obstruction here.

I can't tell if Maven is saying the same thing with his quote at the end of his great post, or if that's what he's replying to and essentially arguing against the highlighted part of the rule.

Based on the latest NCAA video I would say the highlighted should read as follows: it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner WHILE in an attempt to field the ball. In the OP and on the new NCAA video the catchers, who could field the throw from RF out of the baseline, both try to block the plate while fielding the throw. Their movement into the baseline was not a necessary reaction to the throw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great discussion, so based on what I'm gathering in the posts, from the runners stand point, OBR rule set,  he'd be expected to adjust his line to slide into fair territory to avoid the catcher?

 

seems to this layman, it would a difficult thing to do based on the timing of F2s move backward to field the thrown ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...