Crash rule with ball/without ball

[Comp]

If she is guilty of crashing the catcher that is in possession of the ball, then no she would not be safe and then ejected. She would be out and ejected if the umpire felt it was warranted. If she runs over the catcher who doesn't have the ball, then yes she would be safe and then ejected.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[The Man In Blue]

Without the ball, yes. Safe.

With the ball, no. Out.

As @Comp and I both pointed out, the "with the ball" clause ONLY relates to being able to call the runner out for the offense, regardless of the result of the play. This allows for any protection on an obstruction call to be waived. If the fielder does not have the ball, you cannot call the runner out for the offense. She would still be safe (given she touches the plate/base) and then would be ejected once play has stopped.

EDIT: I am typing too slow Comp!

 

[BlaineAB]

I'm torn on the not being able to call the runner out at home if the defender doesn't have the ball. I get the logic of the situation,
the defender doesn't have the ball, so they couldn't get an out. But just the ejection of the offensive player doesn't seem like enough of a penalty for the infraction.

As far as the ejection, am I reading the NFHS and USA rules correctly in that the NFHS rule doesn't require the umpire to discern whether the contact was "malicious" while the USA rule does?

 

[2br02b]

Try asking your DD's what they think they should do when encountering these two situations as a runner. Then ask why. I think you will be surprised.

 

[marriard]

I'm torn on the not being able to call the runner out at home if the defender doesn't have the ball. I get the logic of the situation,
the defender doesn't have the ball, so they couldn't get an out. But just the ejection of the offensive player doesn't seem like enough of a penalty for the infraction.

As far as the ejection, am I reading the NFHS and USA rules correctly in that the NFHS rule doesn't require the umpire to discern whether the contact was "malicious" while the USA rule does?

As with the rules I posted earlier, NFHS they have an out either way (ball or not), and they make it clear that if you don't leave your feet and crash that is malicious. They also have a defined malicious contact rule and penalty which allows you to make the same call if they do something different that is malicious - as it includes a dead ball and an immediate out penalty if done by the offense.

I don't do USA; but reading their ruleset I wasn't really finding any malicious contact rule or definition and I expect umpires cover this in their unsportsmanlike conduct ruling. I understand what they are trying to say - if the ball isn't there, then there is no play so then the contact is considered incidental and play on. However, if the contact is NOT incidental and it is clearly what amounts to an attack on another player that is not directly addressed. My instinct is to call an immediate dead ball to try to stop it escalating into a full-fledged fight, eject the player immediately and if have to return runners back to bases (including a sub for the ejected player) then I will. I am certainly not letting a runner score after they intentionally ran through a fielder and left her on the ground while play continues.

 

[BlaineAB]

Thanks.

USA rule 8-7-Q-4 reads, "if flagrant, the runner is ejected."

 

[marriard]

Thanks.

USA rule 8-7-Q-4 reads, "if flagrant, the runner is ejected."

Yes, but that rule specifically talks about 'with the ball' so is that part of it? Also POE#14 talks about if the ball isn't there don't apply it. It is all poorly thought out - but then the idea of malicious contact away from a play is not something that should need to be covered in detail for a particular scenario but I was surprised I couldn't easily find a similar rule to the NFHS one.

NFHS has a simple rule - malicious contact - it doesn't matter where or when. From the offense, ejection and an out. malicious contact from the defense, ejection, delayed dead ball if you can.

 

[BlaineAB]

Would be great if the various governing bodies rules committees could be locked in a room and come out with one set of rules.

I can dream.

 

[EC22]

So what about the 2b deliberately standing in the base path to obstruct the steal? What's the advice here?

 

[radness]

Slide appropriately!