Worst Call in Moline !?! MG vs Birm Mustangs

[anonlooker]

Don't forget the part where the ump refused to allow the UIC to be called to the field and then after the game the MG coach was told "you should have gotten the UIC".

Well, no, that would not be the correct thing to do. It just takes one, simple word, "protest". Without that at the proper time, you're wasting your time. But, you say "protest" and just stand in the middle of the infield and someone will go and get the UIC for you.

Can you imagine if coaches actually did that at Moline... I'd still be on Twitter posting updates!

The upside being that a few games may have turned out differently

[NumeroUno]

Don't forget the part where the ump refused to allow the UIC to be called to the field and then after the game the MG coach was told "you should have gotten the UIC".

Well, no, that would not be the correct thing to do. It just takes one, simple word, "protest". Without that at the proper time, you're wasting your time. But, you say "protest" and just stand in the middle of the infield and someone will go and get the UIC for you.

MTR mg tried to protest the game and the home ump said they could not because it was a judgement call...

[vcblue]

Read the RS again and then watch the video. RS 13 clearly states when the ball/runner/player arrive at the same time you don't have a crash, OBS, or INT. Only a IC. The video clearly shows the ball/runner/player arriving at the same time.

Don't need to read it again, because I already understand that the "Crash Rule" applies to tag plays, not to fielders in the act of fielding a batted ball.

RS13 G "When the ball, runner and the defensive player arrive at the same time and place, and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the crash rule, interference, or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact, or what some persons commonly call a wreck".

BTW RS 33 references RS13. Which means RS13 is in addition to RS33 and that you can not enforce RS33 with out taking RS13 in to consideration.

Look as I said in the first post, I would have INT. However, looking at the play over and over again I can see where the PU MAY have judged the ball, fielder, and runner coming together at the same time.

[vcblue]

As we discussed earlier in the post....she never got the ball, she was trying to field it, if you will.

I agree with the INT call as long as the ball did not reach the player prior to the runner.

MTR... The fielder touched the ball right when the runner made contact with her.

[vcblue]

The ASA "Crash Rule" refers to a fielder who has possession of the ball and is waiting to make a tag. Doesn't seem to be the case here at all. This is a fielder in he act of fielding a batted ball and such a fielder has the right of way. The runner is obligated to not interfere, whether intentional or not.

If the "stolen" home run story is accurate, I'm shocked that umpires at the national level would call that. As described, that isn't a rule violation in any way, shape or form. Offensive coach should have filed a protest over that one.

Read the RS again and then watch the video. RS 13 clearly states when the ball/runner/player arrive at the same time you don't have a crash, OBS, or INT. Only a IC. The video clearly shows the ball/runner/player arriving at the same time.

So if the runner barrels over the defender when the ball arrives, all is good? Thanks! Can't wait til fall ball starts so we can teach the kids some new base running strategies.

Don't be an a$$. I am just showing how one umpire may have judged this as IC and how it is supported in the book. Myself and others have said we judged this was INT. But this was a judgment call, and if protested the blue very easily could have said to the UIC, "I judged IC as supported by RS 13". The UIC would have to back him up. If he didn't then the UIC doesn't know the rules.

[vcblue]

How many rule supplements are there, anyway? 55

All of which begs the larger question... why is there rule stating IC if the ball, fielder, and runner collide simultaneously, and another that says the fielder has to be allowed to play the ball. Don't they pretty much contradict one another? Or does it just become a matter of semantics, and who knows which rule (supplement) better?

As Bretman said, they cover 2 different situations. RS 13 applies to tag plays and RS 33 applies to fielders in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Sorry Pdad. RS33 reference RS 13 which means an umpire must considered RS13 before making a INT call.

[MTR]

Read the RS again and then watch the video. RS 13 clearly states when the ball/runner/player arrive at the same time you don't have a crash, OBS, or INT. Only a IC. The video clearly shows the ball/runner/player arriving at the same time.

Don't need to read it again, because I already understand that the "Crash Rule" applies to tag plays, not to fielders in the act of fielding a batted ball.

RS13 G "When the ball, runner and the defensive player arrive at the same time and place, and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the crash rule, interference, or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact, or what some persons commonly call a wreck".

BTW RS 33 references RS13. Which means RS13 is in addition to RS33 and that you can not enforce RS33 with out taking RS13 in to consideration.

Look, you can bark up this tree until the leaves fall, it does not apply on a batted ball and really is somewhat antiquated since it hasn't been updated since the OBS and INT rules have been changed.

Look as I said in the first post, I would have INT. However, looking at the play over and over again I can see where the PU MAY have judged the ball, fielder, and runner coming together at the same time.

The only way this is not INT is if the PU judged that this was a deflected ball and the BR intentionally interferred with F3. 8.7.J.4

[wyzaird]

OK... everyone missing the point here...
The crash rule is good for a runner from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd.
Help me understand from the video... you have a player running 3' inside the fair line and 12-15ft down the base path.... and at the last minute try's to jump out of the way of the first basemen and into the running lane.. then hits her with her Knee in the head as she is reaching for the ball....
WHAT happened to the base running lane rule... we should have it taken out of the game now...
Crash rule has no place in this discussion regarding this play.
If we continue to allow such flagrant base running... we will have more players twitching on the field like the girl that got hit.... pretty scary.

[Bretman]

Yes, somebody is missing the point...

The Crash Rule applies at any base and any point on the field, not just between first and third.

The three-foot running lane only applies when the ball is being throw to or a throw is being fielded at first base. It has ZERO bearing on a fielder fielding a batted ball.

Besides that, as you noted the batter-runner is only 12-15 feet down the baseline. The three-foot running lane starts halfway (30 feet) up the baseline. If the running lane did have any bearing on this play (it doesn't) the runner hasn't reached it yet. Even if she had been hit by a throw at this point, it wouldn't be interference for being out of the lane.

[Bretman]

Don't be an a$$. I am just showing how one umpire may have judged this as IC and how it is supported in the book. Myself and others have said we judged this was INT. But this was a judgment call, and if protested the blue very easily could have said to the UIC, "I judged IC as supported by RS 13". The UIC would have to back him up. If he didn't then the UIC doesn't know the rules.

You can't use "judgment" as your justification to apply a rule that doesn't in any way, shape or form apply to the play at hand.