Can intentional collision negate obstruction

[Momo'sDad]

10u friendly (but I want to learn everything I can), ASA

Runners on 2nd & 3rd, ball is hit to right field. R1 scores. As R2 nears plate, catcher is standing in path, so runner shoves her out of the way and then steps on home plate. Throw comes in once she has already made a few steps back to her dugout.

The runner had her hands crossed in front of her body at her shoulders at the time of the shove. Imagine the brace for impact position when flying. It wasn't malicious, but it was harder than necessary. I had already signaled the OBS. Runner had more than enough time to avoid the collision and touch the plate safely.

I know I made the right call in this instance. The OC asked me after the inning about it, because she felt that her catcher was about to receive the ball. This was not close to being a bang-bang play.

But my question is this: Is there ever a situation where an intentional collision would negate obstruction?

 

[Comp]

It doesnt negate the obstruction, but if you felt the contact was unwarranted and unsportsmanlike you can eject the player.

Forgot to add, the only rule set I am aware of that has about to receive is NCAA. All other rule sets the defensive player either has the ball before obstruction or they dont.

 

[Umpire]

NFHS has a specific rule saying, in sum and substance, that if there is malicious contact with a player who isn't in possession of the ball, the ball still becomes dead and she is ejected immediately. If she hadn't stepped on home at the time of the contact, the run is negated (because of the dead ball). All other codes would allow the run, then eject the runner for malicious conduct.

My advise, tell your catcher to get a legal guarding position. Otherwise, you're neglecting a serious safety issue.

 

[David Carter]

NFHS has a specific rule saying, in sum and substance, that if there is malicious contact with a player who isn't in possession of the ball, the ball still becomes dead and she is ejected immediately. If she hadn't stepped on home at the time of the contact, the run is negated (because of the dead ball). All other codes would allow the run, then eject the runner for malicious conduct.

My advise, tell your catcher to get a legal guarding position. Otherwise, you're neglecting a serious safety issue.

Does not sound like there is any incentive for the catcher to get into a legal position. If the ball never gets there OBS does not matter because runner would be safe anyway, runner might slow down and give the ball time to get there and without contact chances of OBS call is slim, if ball does get there runner is probably out, and if runner just plows over catcher you have a chance at getting a free out and ejection.

The obvious incentive is to not get hurt and also to play the game correctly/legally but thinking strictly from a competitive standpoint why should the catcher not stand a couple feet up the line without the ball. This is not what I teach or advocate....just asking the question.

 

[Umpire]

Does not sound like there is any incentive for the catcher to get into a legal position. If the ball never gets there OBS does not matter because runner would be safe anyway, runner might slow down and give the ball time to get there and without contact chances of OBS call is slim, if ball does get there runner is probably out, and if runner just plows over catcher you have a chance at getting a free out and ejection.

The obvious incentive is to not get hurt and also to play the game correctly/legally but thinking strictly from a competitive standpoint why should the catcher not stand a couple feet up the line without the ball. This is not what I teach or advocate....just asking the question.

I see your point. As does the NCAA to a certain extent. That's why the NCAA implemented a rule saying that if the same fielder obstructs a runner rounding or returning a 2nd time (a warning being issued the 1st time), that runner will get another base REGARDLESS of whether the obstruction prohibited the runner from advancing or returning. That put an end to the "why not cheat if there's no penalty" mentality.