10-12 u Baseball Bronco

[PBTR27]

Would you interpret a rule that says both players must avoid collision as a no contact rule? We had a situation past weekend where R3 was stealing home and the catcher was waiting for the play to be completed at first to receive the ball however his setup was not in front of the plate with left leg facing 3P. He was on right side of HP with left leg on middle of plate so as he received the ball and came down to make the tag he had no room to make a low tag as R3 left leg was extended to attempt a slide catcher moved left to attempt a tag at R3s chest with his left knee pushing into R3s extended leg. R3 called safe as his left foot was on HP and the game ended after that as R3 was carted off the field by an ambulance(snapped tibia and fibula) but not sure if catcher should have been ejected attempting to avoid the collision per the rule book. In future situations like this should catcher be corrected on their position before the play is made as it is not avoiding contact vs if they were setup the usual way in front of HP.?

[The Man in Blue]

Saying players MUST AVOID contact is like herding kittens with a leaf blower.  Contact is going to happen in baseball.  It is unavoidable.  If you want to say they must make an effort, OK.

That said, I don't think anybody would interpret that as "NO TOUCHING."  I would hope most people would interpret it as "you should not intentionally go after someone and you should make an effort to avoid accidents."

What makes you so sure F2 was the one that made contact?  Just because the runner "lost" doesn't mean the catcher was the guilty party.  Sounds like F2 had a less than ideal (but not illegal) position and the runner slid into him.

[Jay R.]

FWIW, I don't believe your rule cited as "both players must avoid collision" is an official PONY rule; I just did a ctrl-F through the PONY rulebook for "collision" and saw nothing; "contact" did not return anything related to contact between runner and fielder. 

In my experience in a PONY-heavy area most local leagues have a vaguely worded local rule about avoiding contact or collisions that gives broad leeway to the umpire. Even at that the penalty tends to be an out if the offender is the runner or obstruction if it's the fielder. Umpires might call malicious contact or unsportsmanlike conduct and eject the offender if it's particularly egregious but it doesn't sound like your play was that. 

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, Jay R. said:

In my experience in a PONY-heavy area most local leagues have a vaguely worded local rule about avoiding contact or collisions that gives broad leeway to the umpire.

"avoid contact" rules exclude legal slides. This is baseball after all.

LL for example, 7.08.a(3), says you don't have to try to get around a fielder if you slide.

[Jay R.]

Agree, @Velho. 

Having worked in both LL and PONY jurisdictions, in my experience local LL leagues adhere much more closely to the rulebook, which means that it's actually been thought through rather than jotted down by a random (well-meaning) board member. 

I de facto call collisions in youth games in line with the LL rulebook in mind. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

"avoid contact" rules exclude legal slides. This is baseball after all.

LL for example, 7.08.a(3), says you don't have to try to get around a fielder if you slide.

 

Just don't get all Tommy Pham butt-hurt when you do slide as a lame excuse to hit the catcher and it doesn't go your way.  😋

[MadMax]

On 6/6/2024 at 12:35 PM, PBTR27 said:

Would you interpret a rule that says both players must avoid collision as a no contact rule?

No, I wouldn't, and, we as umpires cannot. Why? Because, if we use simple logic, what is a tag (attempt)? Yup, contact. "But surely that kind of contact is allowed!", you'll say... but that means we'd have to modify and further define a "no contact" rule... if it existed.

However, there is a "collision rule", in a sense, but rather than defining a collision, it delineates what actions are allowed, with contact occurring within those parameters covered, allowed, and most times, expected. If contact occurs outside of those parameters, it is then illegal, and the severity pushes it into "malicious contact". 

On 6/6/2024 at 12:35 PM, PBTR27 said:

but not sure if catcher should have been ejected attempting to avoid the collision per the rule book.

As several of us have noted, there isn't a rule in the rule book that states this, and the closest rules that address collisions and other forms of malicious contact detail that the contact has to be deemed to be outwardly malicious, with willful and/or deliberate intent. 

The resulting severity of any/the injury cannot, in and of itself, constitute grounds for an ejection. A malicious (contact) act – the act – is what warrants an ejection or any further punitive action (suspensions, fines, etc.), not any/the injury. Of course, if an injury occurs, we need to be immediately attentive to the health and safety of the injured, but we cannot simply "eject and further litigate" a participant because someone got injured, no matter how severe. What if that same player in the OP dove/slid headfirst into the plate, and (let's not be morbid) broke his collarbone? Do we eject the catcher for that? And then we come to find out that, in that particular league, headfirst slides at the plate are prohibited? Do we still eject the catcher, and rescind it? 

As several generations of adults, we've gotta stop bubble-wrapping our kids. Injuries happen, even in the most innocuous and legal of actions.

[BigBlue4u]

7 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Saying players MUST AVOID contact is like herding kittens with a leaf blower.

TMIB.. WHERE did you come up with that?  That definitely has hall-of-fame possibilities. 

[BigBlue4u]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

No, I wouldn't, and, we as umpires cannot. Why? Because, if we use simple logic, what is a tag (attempt)? Yup, contact. "But surely that kind of contact is allowed!", you'll say... but that means we'd have to modify and further define a "no contact" rule... if it existed.

However, there is a "collision rule", in a sense, but rather than defining a collision, it delineates what actions are allowed, with contact occurring within those parameters covered, allowed, and most times, expected. If contact occurs outside of those parameters, it is then illegal, and the severity pushes it into "malicious contact". 

As several of us have noted, there isn't a rule in the rule book that states this, and the closest rules that address collisions and other forms of malicious contact detail that the contact has to be deemed to be outwardly malicious, with willful and/or deliberate intent. 

The resulting severity of any/the injury cannot, in and of itself, constitute grounds for an ejection. A malicious (contact) act – the act – is what warrants an ejection or any further punitive action (suspensions, fines, etc.), not any/the injury. Of course, if an injury occurs, we need to be immediately attentive to the health and safety of the injured, but we cannot simply "eject and further litigate" a participant because someone got injured, no matter how severe. What if that same player in the OP dove/slid headfirst into the plate, and (let's not be morbid) broke his collarbone? Do we eject the catcher for that? And then we come to find out that, in that particular league, headfirst slides at the plate are prohibited? Do we still eject the catcher, and rescind it? 

As several generations of adults, we've gotta stop bubble-wrapping our kids. Injuries happen, even in the most innocuous and legal of actions.

I think a good course of action in plays such as this is to, after the wreck, 1) ask yourself, what was the catcher trying to do and 2) what was the runner trying to do. Your answer should head you in the right direction in determining your call.

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

TMIB.. WHERE did you come up with that?  That definitely has hall-of-fame possibilities. 

I have no idea . . . I can track most of my folksy sayings and movie quotes back, but that one I do not know.

 

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

I think a good course of action in plays such as this is to, after the wreck, 1) ask yourself, what was the catcher trying to do and 2) what was the runner trying to do. Your answer should head you in the right direction in determining your call.

This is a good approach.  Last weekend we had a massive trainwreck at first base.  I was in C, and we had a routine ground ball.  As I am punching the runner out . . . 

 

Wait, no . . . wrong Wham!

 

My partner and I hustle there to break up the quickly boiling tempers.  I'm thinking "There is absolutely no reason that I could see for the runner to be out there.  We have a safety base."  Once things are calmed down, I say to my partner, "OK, let's unpack this.  From my angle, I had nothing that looked like the runner needed to cut out there and I had nothing that looked like F3 came back into his path."

My partner says, "Nothing to unpack, he totally intended to try to take him out.  He wasn't even headed to the white bag.  F3 was stretched out on a routine play and didn't come back."

Epilogue: My partner handled the EJ expertly.  He simply went over to the coach and said, "#43 is out of the game, who do you have coming in for him?"  Coach nodded and gave us the substitute.  We went to the other side (where F3's mom was howling at the moon), gave the opposing coach the substitution and let him know the player had been removed from eligibility.   With no flashy public display for the ejection, mom continued howling and we let the coach handle that.  She quieted down once he told her.

[PBTR27]

Thank you all. I just wanted to make sure the right call was made. It's up to the coaches to show how to make better tags to avoid losing the ball. I found some pics in case you guys wanted to see. Last one is a little graphic. 

[Velho]

Ugh. I feel bad for the runner.

The coach in me is yelling SLIDE!! (Not only would he have been safe but no one would have been worse for wear)

[The Man in Blue]

Yeah . . . I was picturing a slide and the catcher landing on him.  I hate to say it, but that is totally on the runner.  Poor kid, I hope he recovers quickly and properly.

I'll hold off on the ribbing of the new guy, but stick around here @PBTR27!  You have a lot to learn and asking questions like this shows that you care and have the right attitude to make a go of umpiring.