Blocking home plate? You make the call

[Umpireernie]

No crap captain - yer so eager to conclude I don't know the difference that ya can't even tell when I was JUST INADVERTENTLY SWITCHING THE WORDS. WOW - I can tell why you guys, in general, can't fight yer way out of a wet paper bag.....

Love the attitude that the umpire is automatically part of the opposition. Nice, sir!

 

[RubberBiscuit]

Love the attitude that the umpire is automatically part of the opposition. Nice, sir!

To set the record straight, I am taking the position that in general umpires do NOT respect their trade enough. This is specifically in respect to IP's and interference/obstruction where like I said in one thread I personally have seen way too many umpires dramatically incorrectly deal with those scenarios. I have umped for a few years myself. I know what it's like to not get paid (relatively) for a service that gets soooo much scrutiny.

But this along with the over-confidence in which these "soo many" umpires act on these misunderstood and/or misapplied rules will not have me stay quiet on this opinion. Now if you feel you act consistently and correctly on the rules in this area, like I told the other "ump", you have ALL my respect and I pray for your non-retirement from the sport.

 

[Cobb_of_Fury]

I don't think your runner needed to do anything differently if she didn't reach home plate because her slide was stopped short by the catcher impeding her without the ball. If that was the case, OBS should have been called.

Our runner slid in and toppled the catcher (Gaining a bruised rib in the process - So a back door slide would have been preferred)
Could it also have been called Interferiance (or worse an Ejection) on our runner since she slid into the catcher or does she have to go in with the intent to knock down the catcher? Is the act of sliding enough to meet the avoiding contact rule?

 

[BretMan]

Our runner slid in and toppled the catcher (Gaining a bruised rib in the process - So a back door slide would have been preferred)
Could it also have been called Interferiance (or worse an Ejection) on our runner since she slid into the catcher or does she have to go in with the intent to knock down the catcher? Is the act of sliding enough to meet the avoiding contact rule?

Contacting the catcher while executing a legal slide should never be called as interference.

Some things that might constitute a illegal slide, and could be interference, include: Sliding away from the base to contact the fielder; Slashing or kicking at the fielder; Not being on the ground when sliding (like how Ty Cobb used to dive into people feet first); Sliding with a cleat raised up in the air at the fielder; Committing some other act that isn't associated with sliding normally at the base.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Our runner slid in and toppled the catcher (Gaining a bruised rib in the process - So a back door slide would have been preferred)

Toppled the catcher after F2 dove from her knees up the 1B line to catch the ball? I'm having a hard time picturing this sequence of events, especially since F2 didn't have the ball when the runner slid into her.

Hindsight is 20-20. I think there are inherent risks on these plays regardless of the approach she took.

 

[Umpire]

I want to explore this one a bit with you Ump -

So what do you call when a catcher is awaiting a throw coming in and the runner (smartly) does the well-known hook-slide - to avoid in the tag in the furthest distance away from the catcher possible - even though the catcher is NOT blocking any direct access to the home plate.

I assume your judgement is purely based on the catcher being in the baseline path and NOT because the runner altered their path - right?

The umpire must determine if the runner altered her path and whether she did so necessarily because a player without possession of the ball impeded her access to the plate. I'm not sure what you mean by "Not blocking and DIRECT ACCESS to home plate." The runner is entitled to the entire plate, whatever portion she wants of it, if the defender doesn't have the ball.

My ruling will be based on all the factors. There mere presence of the catcher is nothing until she hinders or impedes the runner.

 

[Umpire]

Please clarify how/when you establish her "original" path.

Your post seems to indicate a bias to call obstruction whenever the runner does a slide-by. Please clarify.

IME, umpires won't call obstruction if the runner slows and/or alters their path in advance of reaching the catcher because the runner is doing it before knowing whether the catcher will be in their way without the ball. The only time umpires seem to call OBS is when the runner makes a late adjustment just prior to reaching the catcher without the ball.

Any decently fast runner can go from 3rd to home in 3 seconds or less. Physically, the runner must alter her path before she gets to the catcher, otherwise she would just run into the catcher; so your comment doesn't seem to make much sense.

I do not have a bias toward calling obstruction. I watch the play and rule accordingly. With that said, you generally need the presence of a defender at home plate to get a runner to use a slide-by; maybe not 100% of the time but 99%. If a runner is running straight to the plate and then alters her path out wider and a time when doing so is reasonable and the defender is standing within that original path without the ball, then we have obstruction.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

IME, umpires won't call obstruction if the runner slows and/or alters their path well in advance of reaching the catcher because the runner is doing it before knowing whether the catcher will be in their way without the ball. The only time umpires seem to call OBS is when the runner makes a late adjustment just prior to reaching the catcher without the ball.

Any decently fast runner can go from 3rd to home in 3 seconds or less. Physically, the runner must alter her path before she gets to the catcher, otherwise she would just run into the catcher; so your comment doesn't seem to make much sense.

My bad - I left out a word. I apologize that this caused you to respond with 2 unrelated points.

IME, OBS calls based on the runner making an adjustment occur very rarely and only when done late, so it was extremely clear the catcher impeded them by being in their path without the ball. OBS rightly isn't called if the runner makes an adjustment early (e.g. after rounding 3B towards HP) because it was done prior to knowing whether the catcher will still be in their path without the ball when they get there. Coaches frequently complain about these non-calls, but the truth is the runner's early action just allows more time for the ball to get to the catcher before them.

I do not have a bias toward calling obstruction. I watch the play and rule accordingly. With that said, you generally need the presence of a defender at home plate to get a runner to use a slide-by; maybe not 100% of the time but 99%.

It's very rare home plate is left unattended. I guess your experience is different. Regardless, runners routinely use a slide-by because they've been coached to do it whenever there might be a play on them. At the time they commit to doing it, they don't know whether the catcher will have the ball or not.

If a runner is running straight to the plate and then alters her path out wider and a time when doing so is reasonable and the defender is standing within that original path without the ball, then we have obstruction.

Thank you Richard, although your time criteria doesn't make sense... umm, is rather sketchy.