Running over the catcher

[slagothar]

R1 on third base, pitcher throws a wild pitch and R1 starts running home. When R1 is about half way home, ball bounces off backstop and right to catcher. So catcher is holding the ball with R1 still ~10 feet from home. Instead of retreating or trying to get in a run down (though she paused momentarily when she noticed the catcher had the ball), R1 charges at catcher. Collision occurs, (about 2-3 feet from homeplate up the "basepath") both girls tumble to ground. Catcher holds onto ball so R1 is out.

Is this the only outcome there should have been? Are girls allowed to run over catchers? If I was the opposing coach, I would have argued for flagrant or malicious contact and for an ejection.

 

[Eric F]

Without seeing the play for myself, it's hard to make the call, but there certainly is a possibility that the runner could be ejected if the contact was judged as intentional and malicious by the ump.

 

[Orange Socks]

R1 couldn't slide that far from home plate with the catcher in the base path. R1 could have tried juking left or right or jumping over the catcher too. R1 was stuck. The other question is what is the catcher's responsibility? Should the catcher have side stepped and swiped a tag to avoid the collision? Was there enough time for the catcher to make this move?

 

[radness]

* hard to be determine without video but will try

R1 on third base, pitcher throws a wild pitch and R1 starts running home. When R1 is about half way home, ball bounces off backstop and right to catcher. So catcher is holding the ball with R1 still ~10 feet from home. Instead of retreating or trying to get in a run down (though she paused momentarily when she noticed the catcher had the ball), R1 charges at catcher. Collision occurs, (about 2-3 feet from homeplate up the "basepath") both girls tumble to ground. Catcher holds onto ball so R1 is out.

Is this the only outcome there should have been? Are girls allowed to run over catchers? If I was the opposing coach, I would have argued for flagrant or malicious contact and for an ejection.

Bulldozing is flagrant.
Needs to be handled immediately by the umpire. Ejection of player.
From your description the catcher had the ball going to the runner the runner would have been able to see the catcher has the ball if there were at least three long strides before the runner contacted the catcher I would consider the runner new what they were doing.


Oh my how the game has changed...
In this era back in the late 80's
No violations by either the catcher blocking the plate nor the runner aggressively trying to get to the plate.

 

[chinamigarden]

Ohhh how the game


has changed...
In this era back in the late 80's
No violations by either the catcher blocking the plate nor the runner aggressively trying to get to the plate.

View attachment 26115

The glove tells us just how much things have changed.

 

[marriard]

R1 on third base, pitcher throws a wild pitch and R1 starts running home. When R1 is about half way home, ball bounces off backstop and right to catcher. So catcher is holding the ball with R1 still ~10 feet from home. Instead of retreating or trying to get in a run down (though she paused momentarily when she noticed the catcher had the ball), R1 charges at catcher. Collision occurs, (about 2-3 feet from homeplate up the "basepath") both girls tumble to ground. Catcher holds onto ball so R1 is out.

Is this the only outcome there should have been? Are girls allowed to run over catchers? If I was the opposing coach, I would have argued for flagrant or malicious contact and for an ejection.

Not going to say what should have been done in this scenario without seeing it live, because what actually happened versus how someone describes it is always crazy different.

That said, if you intentionally run over another player it is malicious contact and you are ejected.

It is NOT on the fielder who is being run over to move or get out of the way or reposition or.... and so on. If you railroad another player you are ejected. Doesn't have to be catcher either. Intent is not 100% needed either - but if there is intent is even easier to call.

 

[radness]

The glove tells us just how much things have changed.

That was my personal preference Choice there were catchers mitts available.

 

[CoachJD]

Intent is not 100% needed either - but if there is intent is even easier to call.

Whoa... hold on. "Malicious," by definition, requires intent. It's in the definition of the word and its root (malice).

That is a specific choice of word. It's not "hard" contact or "rough" contact. It's described as malicious contact for a reason (although, it could be the people who write the rulebooks don't understand the definition of words. It would not be the only time their poor grasp of language caused a problem).

 

[Sweet Lou]

R1 couldn't slide that far from home plate with the catcher in the base path. R1 could have tried juking left or right or jumping over the catcher too. R1 was stuck. The other question is what is the catcher's responsibility? Should the catcher have side stepped and swiped a tag to avoid the collision? Was there enough time for the catcher to make this move?

What if it was the SS at 2B instead of the catcher? You wouldn't advocate for the runner to bowl over the SS and the SS try to side swipe a tag would you? Why should the catcher be treated different than any other defender?

 

[_MIA_]

Why should the catcher be treated different than any other defender?

because we all hate catchers?? duh..