Blocking home plate? You make the call

[KCPRK]

Runner rounds 3rd and is going home. Relay is coming from left field line (ball was hit down left field line). Catcher is straddling the plate waiting throw. Runner is halfway down line when catcher receives the ball (came over runners head). Catcher takes 2 steps up the line to apply the tag. Runner doesn't slow down-catcher stands her ground. Collision results in runner being 4 feet from the plate and catcher applied the tag and still has the ball.

Whats the call?

In fairness I ask because home plate calls runner out. Coach appeals and says catcher didn't leave runner a lane and blocked the plate. How should this have played out.

 

[BretMan]

Sounds like "out" was a good call.

Fielders can't block access to a base when they DON'T have the ball. When they DO have it, they can block the base all day long.

By "block access to the base", what we mean is that a fielder without the ball may not impede, hinder or alter the runner's path to the base. Prior to the catcher having the ball, did the runner have to slow down or change course in any way due to the catcher's presence?

Per your description, runner was 1/2 down line when catcher received the ball. That is 30 feet away from home plate. I don't see how the catcher could have impeded the runner's progress, before catching the ball, when the runner would have been 30+ feet away prior to the ball being caught. That rules out obstruction by the catcher.

If catcher had the ball 30 feet before the runner got there, then the runner should have had plenty of time to react and avoid contact. If the runner crashed into the catcher, once the catcher had the ball and was waiting to make a tag, then the runner should have been called out for interference- whether the catcher held onto the ball of not.

If the crash was ruled as flagrant or malicious, then the runner should have also been ejected.

 

[Cobb_of_Fury]

Bret - at what point CAN the Catcher "Block" the plate -

We had a situation where a girl hit a ball to the left field fence and when she had rounded third and about three quarters to home the throw was coming from the cut-off to the first base side of the plate up the line so that the catcher dove from her knees to her right to catch the ball. At that point as the catcher was tring to gather the ball in the runner slid in Feet first.
The Catcher had been blocking the plate from the time the girl rounded third.

<<Disclosure - Runner was called out (even after catcher dropped the ball and tagged late but C'est la vie) >>>

 

[BretMan]

Bret - at what point CAN the Catcher "Block" the plate -

We had a situation where a girl hit a ball to the left field fence and when she had rounded third and about three quarters to home the throw was coming from the cut-off to the first base side of the plate up the line so that the catcher dove from her knees to her right to catch the ball. At that point as the catcher was tring to gather the ball in the runner slid in Feet first.
The Catcher had been blocking the plate from the time the girl rounded third.

<<Disclosure - Runner was called out (even after catcher dropped the ball and tagged late but C'est la vie) >>>

People get too hung on the phrase "blocking the plate". There really isn't any rule that forbids "blocking the plate".

There are obstruction rules that say a fielder without the ball can't impede or hinder a runner. Blocking the plate might result in the runner being impeded...or it might not.

Here's an exaggerated example...

Suppose a batter hits the ball to the fence. As she rounds first base, the catcher is standing right in the base line between third and home.

Would you say that this catcher, who is obviously blocking the plate, is impedeing or obstructing the batter/runner in any way? Of course not.

Now, the runner is rounding second. Catcher is still in the same spot and we have the same result. No obstruction.

Runner is now rounding third. At the moment the runner rounds third base, is she being obstructed by the catcher? After all, the catcher is blocking the base. But is the catcher's presence causing the runner to slow, stop, go around or otherwise alter her path? If not...then she still isn't being obstructed.

Somewhere in the next 60 feet something is going to happen...

As the runner gets closer to home, and her distance to the catcher closes, now the umpire has some work to do. The point that "blocking the plate" turns into obstruction is the point at which the catcher's presence, without the ball, actually causes the runner to stop, slow down, check up, go around, or in some way be hindered from reaching the base.

Lot's can happen before that point!

The runner might take a wide turn around third and choose to come in at an angle that uses a backdoor slide.

The catcher might move out of the way before the runner gets there.

The catcher might receive the ball before the runner gets there.

The runner might decide to steamroll the catcher.

Any of those could influence the final call. You could have rulings ranging from "nothing" to "safe" to "out" to "ejected" all depending on what happens next...and all on a play where the catcher was "blocking the plate".

 

[Cobb_of_Fury]

So in my scenario- It would it have been blocking if our runner slowed or tried to slide around the catcher, since she had not yet received the ball? Our runner did neither...
<<When asked the runner said she should have slid around back of the plate (Correct Answer)>>

 

[coach james]

Out. C was in possession of the ball at the time of collision. A blocked plate at that point is perfectly legal.

 

[RubberBiscuit]

Regardless of rules (which Blues like to selectively employ) I have seen mostly in this case an interference call on the catcher and the runner is awarded home plate. Especially if the catcher is bigger and even more assured if the runner goes down crying like every play in soccer.

 

[Umpire]

Regardless of rules (which Blues like to selectively employ) I have seen mostly in this case an interference call on the catcher and the runner is awarded home plate. Especially if the catcher is bigger and even more assured if the runner goes down crying like every play in soccer.

Before knocking the umpires, learn the terminology. It is defensive OBSTRUCTION, not interference. Since you don't know this much, you probably don't know which rules set requires the player to be in possession of the ball as opposed to about to receive a thrown ball.

 

[Umpire]

Out. C was in possession of the ball at the time of collision. A blocked plate at that point is perfectly legal.

WRONG COACH JAMES - WRONG AGAIN. You have missed everything that people have written, especially BretMan, who I thank for taking the time to write what I didn't have the time to.

ANALYSIS: At the time the runner was hindered or at the time she altered her base path:
(1) Was the fielder in possession of the ball (we're not dealing with in the act of fielding a BATTED ball in these scenarios)?
(2) Was the runner actually hindered or did she actually have to alter her base path?

If the answers are (1) NO and (2) YES = OBSTRUCTION.

This is true in every level of amateur ball that I can think of. Things change as you move into NCAA, NPF, ISF. But for 99.9% of the viewers out there, this is the rule.

The most overlooked obstruction at the plate is when a runner alters her original path because the catcher is in the baseline in front of the plate and the runner attempts a slide-by. When a runner has to employ a sliding technique that would not have been required because a defender without possession of the ball is actually blocking the plate (i.e., disallowing the runner's most direct path based on the base path she established), that's obstruction.

The BS argument we get from coaches is, "You don't know that she slid that way because of my catcher." My response is, "If you're catcher was not in an illegal guarding position in the first place, we wouldn't be having the conversation."

 

[RubberBiscuit]

Before knocking the umpires, learn the terminology. It is defensive OBSTRUCTION, not interference. Since you don't know this much, you probably don't know which rules set requires the player to be in possession of the ball as opposed to about to receive a thrown ball.

Obstruction/Interference - Potatoe/Potatto..... Big deal on the wording that I swap all the time.....

Yes I am aware of the ball-in-possession adder to these rules.

Listen, you may be a wonderful ump and you respect your craft enough to know the rules and have a good level of consistency on their application. All I am saying is that after my DD's 18yrs of age I thought once we got past Little League that in TB we would see umpires consistently respecting their craft. I don't see that. If this does not apply to you then "god-bless" and please do not ever retire