How would you have ruled the play?

[MTR]

Our rec league also has a slide rule if there is a play at home.

Your league needs to drop that rule. It places everyone involved in jeopardy.

Otherwise it looks like catcher interference.

Wrong game. The call is obstruction.

 

[MTR]

The league has an avoid contact rule not a must slide (below is the actual rule). Since our rule specifies avoid contact the umpire was correct in ruling the runner safe in accordance with ASA 7.Q and as it described in R/S #13. The contact with the catchers head was incidental and clearly not intentional.

Rules Supplement Number 13, Crashing into a Fielder with a Ball (Interference). In order to prevent injury and protect the defensive player attempting to make a play on a runner, the runner must be called out if she remains on her feet and crashes into a defensive player holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag, or if the defensive player is about to receive a thrown ball. In order to prevent the crash ruling, the runner can slide, jump over the top of the defender holding the ball, go around the defender (if outside the three foot lane, the runner would be called out), or return to the previous base touched.

12. A base runner is not required to slide, but must attempt to avoid collision or will be called out.

You need to update your rule book as there is not longer an "about to receive" allowance. There is also no #12 (or any other number) in RS 13.

 

[DonnieS]

At the rec league we started at, there was a mandatory slide rule like the one you describe. The blues objected to the rule for the reasons MTR mentioned. They followed it but objected for several years until it was corrected.

 

[SoCalDad]

You need to update your rule book as there is not longer an "about to receive" allowance. There is also no #12 (or any other number) in RS 13.

The rule 12 in bold is from the rec leagues local playing rules and is in response to the question of whether my league has a slide rule. It has nothing to do with R/S #13.

 

[FPump]

One of our 12U rec teams was holding a make-up game tonight and I was watching a bit before my practice started. Bottom of the first saw this play. Runner on second. Batter hits a solid shot to left field. Runner on second is waved home. The left fielder cleanly fields the ball and comes up throwing. The catcher is lined up about a foot in front of home on the 3rd base line. The catcher has her glove out to make the play and the ball bounces off her glove a step before the runner gets to her. Without breaking stride the runner dives over the catcher and touches home plate. During the leap one of the runners knees made contact with the catchers head knocking her over. The umpire rules the runner safe. The other coach protests saying the catcher was not holding the ball at the time the runner started her leap.

How would you have ruled?

SoCalDad:
Based on your OP above and your subsequent post stating your local league rule THE RUNNER IS SAFE. There was no obstruction on the part of the catcher, and no interference on the part of the runner.
"The catcher has her glove out to make the play and the ball bounces off her glove..".Catcher was in the act of fielding a thrown ball.
".....a step before the runner gets to her". Runner and ball arriving simultaneously as catcher is about to field the ball, it happens, it's part of the game...play on.
..."without breaking stride the runner dives over the catcher..." Nothing wrong or illegal there on the part of the runner either by ASA or your local rec league rules.
"The other coach protests saying the catcher was not holding the ball at the same time the runner started her leap." That's right she wasn't holding the ball coach. she never held the ball, she was attempting to field a thrown ball and the runner dove over your catcher coach to avoid crashing into her as she was attempting to make a play.

 

[MTR]

SoCalDad:
Based on your OP above and your subsequent post stating your local league rule THE RUNNER IS SAFE. There was no obstruction on the part of the catcher, and no interference on the part of the runner.
"The catcher has her glove out to make the play and the ball bounces off her glove..".Catcher was in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

Your point? Even in NCAA where they maintained an exception for "about to receive" there is no allowance for being in the "act of fielding a thrown ball"

".....a step before the runner gets to her". Runner and ball arriving simultaneously as catcher is about to field the ball, it happens, it's part of the game...play on.
..."without breaking stride the runner dives over the catcher..." Nothing wrong or illegal there on the part of the runner either by ASA or your local rec league rules.

Ball and runner getting there the same time is a stretch since the runner had the time to adjust their stride and leap over the catcher. That alone is OBS since I doubt the runner would have approached and contacted the plate in that manner if the catcher had not been in the base path.

"The other coach protests saying the catcher was not holding the ball at the same time the runner started her leap." That's right she wasn't holding the ball coach. she never held the ball, she was attempting to field a thrown ball and the runner dove over your catcher coach to avoid crashing into her as she was attempting to make a play.

Again, attempting to catch a thrown ball gives the defense zero, nil, zip, nada, zilch, no rights whatsoever on a softball field speaking ASA, NFHS, NCAA, ISF. And I didn't see anything in the "local" rules that have been posted which contradicts that. If anything, the "must have possession of the ball" rules came to ASA via NFHS which most likely picked them up from rec league rules where there protecting the player is placed at a high priority.

 

[BretMan]

Wrong game. The call is obstruction.

Even if you were working "that other game" calling this interference would still be wrong.

Official Baseball Rules (OBR- what the pros use) do call a catcher impeding the batter from hitting the ball "catcher's interference", while all the other rule sets in the world call it "catcher's obstruction". But a fielder impeding a runner, at any base, is just plain old-fashioned obstruction.

 

[FPump]

MTR,
I read your reply to my post to SoCalDad's sitch.
So we have a different opinion on what the call should be. I've got it as nothing (no interference, no obstruction). You have it as (I believe) obstruction. Fine, we have different calls based on a different assessment of the pertinent elements of the play. So why can't you just state your opinion of the play without having to rip apart another (and I'm assuming you are also an umpire) umpire's opinion of the play? The OP was titled "How Would You Rule"? That's how I would have ruled if I had that play on the field, and I stated my reasoning based on the description of the play in the OP. It's a judgement call. In your judgement it's obstruction, and you've made a good case for that ruling....but then it's your call based on your judgement.

While the play in the OP happened under ASA rules, you did make note that the NCAA "maintained an exception for about to receive, there is no allowance for about to receive a thrown ball." NCAA 9.3.1 and the CCA Manual seem to state otherwise.

 

[MTR]

MTR,
I read your reply to my post to SoCalDad's sitch.
So we have a different opinion on what the call should be. I've got it as nothing (no interference, no obstruction). You have it as (I believe) obstruction. Fine, we have different calls based on a different assessment of the pertinent elements of the play. So why can't you just state your opinion of the play without having to rip apart another (and I'm assuming you are also an umpire) umpire's opinion of the play? The OP was titled "How Would You Rule"? That's how I would have ruled if I had that play on the field, and I stated my reasoning based on the description of the play in the OP. It's a judgement call. In your judgement it's obstruction, and you've made a good case for that ruling....but then it's your call based on your judgement.

No, it is based purely upon the rule. And I would respectfully disagree with anyone who "judges" that a runner who must leap over a defender while advancing to the base as not having been impeded.

While the play in the OP happened under ASA rules, you did make note that the NCAA "maintained an exception for about to receive, there is no allowance for about to receive a thrown ball." NCAA 9.3.1 and the CCA Manual seem to state otherwise.[/QUOTE]

If you are going to quote me, you should at least have the decency of quoting me verbatim and not change the wording to suite your argument. But just so you know, "about to receive" is not the same as the "act of fielding a thrown ball". And while we are citing 9.3.1, lets include paragraph 1 of the attached "Notes""

1. The defensive player must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely
positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive.

 

[FPump]

No, it is based purely upon the rule. And I would respectfully disagree with anyone who "judges" that a runner who must leap over a defender while advancing to the base as not having been impeded.

While the play in the OP happened under ASA rules, you did make note that the NCAA "maintained an exception for about to receive, there is no allowance for about to receive a thrown ball." NCAA 9.3.1 and the CCA Manual seem to state otherwise.

If you are going to quote me, you should at least have the decency of quoting me verbatim and not change the wording to suite your argument. But just so you know, "about to receive" is not the same as the "act of fielding a thrown ball". And while we are citing 9.3.1, lets include paragraph 1 of the attached "Notes""

MTR,
First, apologies if if I did not quote you verbatim. It was unintentional and in noway intended to change "wording to suit my argument", it really wasn't.

Second, regarding 9.3.1 Notes (1), I feel that based on the description in the OP (of the ball skipping over the catcher's glove), that it meets the criteria of "must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive." I see it much like a first baseman stretching for a low throw that skips over her glove into foul territory. Neither one us was there, and certainly I think we'd agree that a lot of ways this sitch is a HTBT kind of play. Now to your point, I could be totally wrong in my interpretation and understanding of what constitutes the defensive player being in the process of catching the ball, as opposed to being in position waiting for the throw. I think it would make an interesting thread to hear different views as to what is and what isn't considered "in the process of catching the ball" under the various codes.

Lastly, I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right. Lighten up for pete sakes. This is just a discussion about a play and the application and interpretation of the pertinent rule, and yes judgement. But the judgement is the HTBT part. That said, we can respectfully agree to disagree on how each of us would have ruled on the field Had We Been There.



1. The defensive player must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely
positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive.[/QUOTE]