Avoiding A Collision

[chinamigarden]

So if the runner sees the throw coming in and knows it will be there at the same time she is, its perfectly ok to just lower her shoulder and blast the catcher? Or maybe that means when the catcher goes to apply the tag in the same situation, it means its ok to whack the runner in the chops with the glove right? That rule pretty much says anything goes and is fair game if the ball and runner arrive at the same time.

the video you posted does not show any lowering of the shoulder or the catcher getting blasted. In fact it looked to me that at the last second the runner tried to avoid the contact and slid, on her feet to the back edge of the plate.

Its a physical game our dds play, sometimes there is contact that causes an injury. But not every time is there a clear cut violation of the rules. Sliding isn't required, some umps/coaches/parents think it is, and there lies the confusion. Too many people with too many versions of what is necessary.

 

[RobD]

I never said she lowered her shoulder or that the catcher got blasted. The only thing the runner did was stretch the right leg to try stepping on the plate before the tag. She actually steps on the front edge of the plate. When she makes that stretch step is when the catcher gets nailed with the runners left knee. There was no slide attempt at all. She knew the ball was coming in and that it would be close and would have avoided most all of the contact IF she tried avoiding it by sliding or trying to go to the outside as there was alot of room there. If the catcher strattled the baseline in blocking the plate, then you can expect contact. Even in that situation, the runner is suppose to minimize contact or collision. I cant agree at all with the runner in this case when the catcher is set up in the front of the batters box, inside the foul line and she still make the hard contact. With the emphasis on concussions and player safety in sports now days, I would think this would be one spot umps would be more picky.

 

[Ajaywill]

If your original post and the video are the same play, your description doesn't match the video.

In the video, the catcher is reaching forward to get the thrown ball while extending her left leg backwards to block the plate. I didn't see any obstuction since the runner never changed her path to the plate, that I could see. When the catcher got the ball, the runner was approx one stride away running at full speed. By the time the catcher turned to tag, the runner was right there, runner never had a chance to change direction, runner did not do anything malicious, that's just a wreck. Had the runner done what you suggested, gone more into foul territory to go around the catcher, I'd probably have an obstruction call on the catcher.

Also - I hope the catcher was OK after this play, her left leg was in a very awkward position when the collision occured.

 

[Comp]

I hadnt noticed the video link before, just watched it. The catcher has her left leg completely across the 3rd base line blocking home plate. Yes, she catches the ball before the runner gets there, but being in that position there is very likely going to be contact on the play. And, the runner does slide, it was just very late and it looks like she was attempting a pop up slide. When her knee came down it just happened to come down on the catchers leg which was stretched out across the baseline. I see nothing flagrant, malicious or out of the ordinary on the play.

 

[redhotcoach]

Ouch! Yes just a wreck. Catcher was blocking the path to allow sliding though not on porpose, looks like runner did the only thing she could.

One of my girls was running home a couple weekends ago. Catch was spread leg blocking the base line about 4 feet up toward third. The runner plowed her, before ball got there, runner said she didnt know what else to do, too far to slide, and catch was spread too wide to go around. Ump called obstruction. Correct call, but you hate to see a girl get leveled and a call on her too.

 

[quincy]

I wish this would be defined better and that we had a local rule to deal with this. I have no interest in seeing players run into each other. Happens more then I would like and have no idea what the umpire is going to call.

 

[RobD]

How is obstruction called on the catcher on a play like this? If the ball is coming in to her or if she has the ball before the runner gets there, she has every right to block the plate.

What I am gathering from the responses is that the catcher is afforded no protection at all under the rules and should be called for obstruction if she blocks the plate as the ball is coming in to her or if she has the ball. Then the runner has no obligation to avoid contact or minimize contact if she can, can basically run through the catcher to get to the plate and if the catcher tries blocking the plate, no worries as the runner is safe anyhow because the catcher "obstructed" her. I cant say I agree at all with that. I agree there needs to be a rule in place thats much clearer and protects the catcher more. Something more clear cut that takes the so called judgement call away from the umps. I think the umps should be there to enforce actual rules, not to make judgement calls. Judgement calls vary way to much from one ump to the next.

 

[ScottBev]

If the catcher doesn't have the ball then obstruction.

To me in the video provided, the runner goes to slide and realizes the catcher's shin is in the way. She goes up and over to avoid sliding directly in the leg. Unfortunately she can't get her left leg out of the way. Its far from intentional and truly that was about the best avoidance possible. Had she gone around the leg everyone would scream that she ran outside of the baseline. Had she slid, she likely wouldn't make it there, plus everyone would scream that she intentionally took out the catcher. By the catcher leaving her leg across the baseline, she left the runner with minimal choices.

With that being said, hopefully the catcher recovers from that play.

 

[GI Tom]

If your original post and the video are the same play, your description doesn't match the video.

I fully agree with that statement Ajaywill.

Also, after watching video, I will tell you I had nothing but softball on this particular play if I'm calling in that game.

At some point RobD, you have to accept that maybe you have some bias, which is ok, I get it and understand it. But don't keep trying to force the issue when you are overwhelmingly getting the same responses from other umpires.

Also, there is protection provided to the catcher, in the form if the umpire believes there is something flagrant done by the runner with contact. Can I describe it for you? Nope, not here, but I can darn sure tell you that I know it when I see it.

What was in that video wasn't it.

 

[Kaizen]

There are two interesting rule issues in the video. The first issue, malicious contact on the collision, has already been covered. Train wreck, play on.

The second issue is when the umpire should call "time" for an incapacitated player. NFHS rule 5-2-1d says “Time” shall be called by the umpire and play suspended when an umpire or player is incapacitated, unless injury occurs during a live ball, then time shall not be called until no further advance or putout is possible. NOTE: If necessary, the umpire may suspend play immediately if, in the umpire’s judgment, further play may cause injury or jeopardize a participant’s safety.