Obs? INT? Nothing? TX HS champ game

[BigBlue4u]

1 hour ago, Tog Gee said:

The runner is obviously interfering, but arguably not rulebook interference.

The catcher needs to continue through to 3rd base on the rundown. The runner is simply trying to draw OBS. What if the catcher went down and later when the runner returns to third there was no one there to receive the ball (catcher was still down?)

What if the catcher rolled his ankle on the intentional contact?

Arguably, the runner intentionally prevents the catcher from making a play/getting into position.

Argument to be made to kill the play on the runner's move into the catcher.

Tog Gee, You made some interesting points.  However, this is where "common sense" comes into play.  By killing the play the moment the runner initiates contact with the catcher, the runner is out, everything stops and we have no "What ifs" and we have no "arguablies."

[Tog Gee]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Tog Gee, You made some interesting points.  However, this is where "common sense" comes into play.  By killing the play the moment the runner initiates contact with the catcher, the runner is out, everything stops and we have no "What ifs" and we have no "arguablies."

Yup, nor can the offense play on and benefit/advance.

IF it's actually interference.

Flopping/drawing calls is for soccer, not baseball.

Edited August 11, 2025 by Tog Gee

[jimurrayalterego]

37 minutes ago, Tog Gee said:

Yup, nor can the offense play on and benefit/advance.

IF it's actually interference.

Flopping/drawing calls is for soccer, not baseball.

Do you think the MLB ump was about to call INT in the play I posted?

[Tog Gee]

5 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Do you think the MLB ump was about to call INT in the play I posted?

No way. I am pondering/proposing that "trying to draw contact/hindering a defensive player in a rundown" could be interference.

[Tog Gee]

On 6/10/2025 at 10:02 AM, The Man in Blue said:

My issue isn't the level of the contact, it is the deliberate abandonment of playing the sporting game and intentionally targeting to create a collision. 

👍

[beerguy55]

And you wonder why players in various sports continue to flop.  Because there's very little risk and all reward...and they get rewarded far too often.

At least hockey has a penalty for embellishment. 

I'd be all for an INT/out for "attempting to induce OBS"

[beerguy55]

On a side note, I'm thinking the call is explainable/understandable/forgivable, albeit likely with a teachable moment somewhere.

I'm guessing the ump is following the ball, so he likely only sees the collision, maybe out of the corner of the eye, without seeing the runner change direction to cause said collision?

[Jimurray]

36 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

On a side note, I'm thinking the call is explainable/understandable/forgivable, albeit likely with a teachable moment somewhere.

I'm guessing the ump is following the ball, so he likely only sees the collision, maybe out of the corner of the eye, without seeing the runner change direction to cause said collision?

And the DC accepted the call as I posted earlier. Since he teaches to target the fielder in a rundown to get OBS he thinks the call is correct. Do you teach that also but advise subtlety?  MLB players have gotten away with subtle moves. 

[beerguy55]

29 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

And the DC accepted the call as I posted earlier. Since he teaches to target the fielder in a rundown to get OBS he thinks the call is correct. Do you teach that also but advise subtlety?  MLB players have gotten away with subtle moves. 

Not in this scenario...we taught our fielders to break off to the right, after throwing the ball, for the express purpose of getting out of the way of the runner.  I'm not gonna claim a moral high horse - there are certainly times I taught how to "accidentally on purpose" do something, but this wasn't one.  In my mind it was too blatant and too hard to be subtle...I was mistaken in that; subtlety apparently isn't necessary.