Collisions at home plate, definition of avoidable collision

[spark2212]

So I have a question regarding rule 6.01(i)(1) and the corresponding comment.

Let’s say, in a major league game, you have a close play at home plate.

Catcher receives the ball and prepares to apply the tag, but the runner plows right through him, and the catcher drops the ball.

Assuming the runner never changed directions and went straight from third base to home plate, is he out for intimating an avoidable collision?

Does it matter whether the catcher illegally blocked the plate?

Does the runner have to physically veer towards the catcher to initiate an avoidable collision?

My friend’s position is: you can run over the catcher if you stay on your running line, and you are going directly to home plate, and if the catcher is blocking the plate, the runner doesn’t have to stop and doesn’t have to slide.

I disagree.

I know most people don’t post on here to settle debates, but I was looking for a definitive answer. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by spark2212
Clarifying the question

[Rich Ives]

31 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

So I have a question regarding rule 6.01(i)(1) and the corresponding comment.

Let’s say, in a major league game, you have a close play at home plate.

Catcher receives the ball and prepares to apply the tag, but the runner plows right through him, and the catcher drops the ball.

Assuming the runner never changed directions and went straight from third base to home plate, is he out for intimating an avoidable collision?

Does it matter whether the catcher illegally blocked the plate?

Does the runner have to physically veer towards the catcher to initiate an avoidable collision?

My friend’s position is: you can run over the catcher if you stay on your running line, and you are going directly to homeplate

I disagree.

I know most people don’t post on here to settle debates, but I was looking for a definitive answer. 

Rule reads: "A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct
pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher,
or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision."

It's TWO requirements.

1) He many not deviate (alter his path) in order to initiate contact.  aka he may not deviate (alter his path) for the purpose of creating contact.

2) He may not initiate an AVOIDABLE collision.

AND THE OFFICIAL IN THE BOOK  COMMENT on your blocking question

If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall NOT find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

 

The whole comment

Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment: 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), or otherwise initiated a collision that
could have been avoided. A slide shall be deemed appropriate,
in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs
should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the
case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid
appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact
with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

 

So I think your friend is right.

 

[spark2212]

2 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Rule reads: "A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct
pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher,
or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision."

It's TWO requirements.

1) He many not deviate (alter his path) in order to initiate contact.  aka he may not deviate (alter his path) for the purpose of creating contact.

2) He may not initiate an AVOIDABLE collision.

AND THE OFFICIAL IN THE BOOK  COMMENT on your blocking question

If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall NOT find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

 

The whole comment

Rule 6.01(i)(1) Comment: 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), or otherwise initiated a collision that
could have been avoided. A slide shall be deemed appropriate,
in the case of a feet first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs
should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the
case of a head first slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid
appropriately if his body should hit the ground before contact
with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner,
the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable
collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1).

 

So I think your friend is right.

 

So, is this even if the catcher has the ball and is attempting to apply a tag?

[Senor Azul]

And I say that your friend is wrong because according to Carl Childress in the 2016 edition of his Baseball Rules Differences (section 348, p. 232), there is an official interpretation concerning malicious contact for the MLB:

“The umpire has the right to eject (a player) from the game if it’s (the contact) blatant, and he’d be automatically out.” [Joe Torre, MLB.com, 2/24/14]

In addition, there is a great analysis of the MLB collision rule written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports that will answer your questions--

HP Collision Rule - Marisnick Illegally Hits Lucroy 7/8/19

https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/07/hp-collision-rule-marisnick-illegally.html

[spark2212]

Just now, Senor Azul said:

And I say that your friend is wrong because according to Carl Childress in the 2016 edition of his Baseball Rules Differences (section 348, p. 232), there is an official interpretation concerning malicious contact for the MLB:

“The umpire has the right to eject (a player) from the game if it’s (the contact) blatant, and he’d be automatically out.” [Joe Torre, MLB.com, 2/24/14]

In addition, there is a great analysis of the MLB collision rule written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports that will answer your questions--

HP Collision Rule - Marisnick Illegally Hits Lucroy 7/8/19

https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/07/hp-collision-rule-marisnick-illegally.html

You know, I used the Marisnick collision in my argument, but my friend argued that he veered towards lucrative at the last second, and so it couldn’t be used as an example. 

[maven]

I'm not sure pro umpires know what MLB wants. They tend not to apply either the collision or blocking rule, and let New York rule on the replays.

I thought they were getting consistent last season, but now I'm not so sure.

In any case, you'd have to have access to the pro guidance to answer the question properly. I don't think anyone here has that kind of juice.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

And I say that your friend is wrong because according to Carl Childress in the 2016 edition of his Baseball Rules Differences (section 348, p. 232), there is an official interpretation concerning malicious contact for the MLB:

“The umpire has the right to eject (a player) from the game if it’s (the contact) blatant, and he’d be automatically out.” [Joe Torre, MLB.com, 2/24/14]

In addition, there is a great analysis of the MLB collision rule written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports that will answer your questions--

HP Collision Rule - Marisnick Illegally Hits Lucroy 7/8/19

https://www.closecallsports.com/2019/07/hp-collision-rule-marisnick-illegally.html

Malicious usually includes specific actions and/or intent to injure.

[Senor Azul]

A runner cannot choose to just plow through a fielder who is attempting a tag. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (chapter 13, p. 108):

In such cases, a runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach the base safely and to stay on the base if it cannot be overrun… Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere with a fielder attempting a throw or tag include:

(a)   grabbing the fielder,

(b)   using excessive and unnecessary force in shoving, elbowing, spiking (at or above the knee), roll blocking, etc., the fielder,

(c)   intentionally standing (rather than sliding) and blocking the fielder,

(d)   waving arms to distract or hinder the fielder,

(e)   throwing a helmet at the ball or the fielder,

(f)     slapping the ball or the fielder’s glove or mitt,

(g)   initiating an avoidable collision with the fielder (NCAA 8-7a-1 and 2)

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual in Section 6.1 on page 81 (exact same text can also be found in the MLBUM):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act--such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.--to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well. Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct.

[Rich Ives]

22 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

A runner cannot choose to just plow through a fielder who is attempting a tag. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (chapter 13, p. 108):

In such cases, a runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach the base safely and to stay on the base if it cannot be overrun… Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere with a fielder attempting a throw or tag include:

(a)   grabbing the fielder,

(b)   using excessive and unnecessary force in shoving, elbowing, spiking (at or above the knee), roll blocking, etc., the fielder,

(c)   intentionally standing (rather than sliding) and blocking the fielder,

(d)   waving arms to distract or hinder the fielder,

(e)   throwing a helmet at the ball or the fielder,

(f)     slapping the ball or the fielder’s glove or mitt,

(g)   initiating an avoidable collision with the fielder (NCAA 8-7a-1 and 2)

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual in Section 6.1 on page 81 (exact same text can also be found in the MLBUM):

While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act--such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc.--to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases. Further, if in the judgment of the umpire such intentional act was to prevent a double play, the umpire would rule the batter-runner out as well. Depending on the severity of the infraction, it is possible the player may be ejected for such conduct.

There's a separate rule for home plate for a reason.

[spark2212]

19 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

There's a separate rule for home plate for a reason.

But does that separate rule add or remove restrictions regarding what a runner can do?

[Jimurray]

54 minutes ago, spark2212 said:

But does that separate rule add or remove restrictions regarding what a runner can do?

At a 2006 Jim Evans clinic he said that there is no rule that prevents a runner from crashing a fielder trying to make a tag. I think they now have added that rule for HP but elsewhere we depend on good graces. 

[beerguy55]

16 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

There's a separate rule for home plate for a reason.

Whether it's because catchers wear the tools of ignorance (and are more likely to block the base than any other fielder), or the fact that you only need to touch the plate and not worry about coming off it, the practice really only ever occurred at home plate.   Problem over time was catchers who weren't blocking the plate were being plowed (like Buster Posey) - mainly because base runners were deciding 45 feet from the base they were going to knock the catcher into next week.

But the reality is, nothing really prevented R1 stealing second from plowing through F6 taking the throw, except tradition...sure, you might come off the base, but does that matter if the ball bounces into the outfield, or F6 is knocked out cold??

Today, if someone were to break tradition and plow through F5 on a throw from the outfield I'm pretty sure MLB umps would use the same rule they use for HP.   They'd be silly not to...or it would be a statement if they didn't...and then MLB would go back and re-word catcher to fielder, and plate to base to make the fundamentalists happy.

[Aging_Arbiter]

Kinda like Buster Posey too.......... when Jerry Finch ran him over.