the correct definition of that play was malicious contact. that being said the catcher needs to be coached up and should never be standing on the base.
the players are and should know the rules both sides runner is wrong so is the fielder however the fact the runner tuck her shoulders in clearly did on purpose
Do you really think the issue here is the coach? First, good call direct avoidable contact by a runner. But for Ump to say a coach has a stupid question? Then ump hunts coach down to smart off again, then tells the coach to stay off the field and he is not allowed to ask any questions. Coach, yes not dressed to be a true coach, actually handled things right. Take call, then between innings asks his question. This ump is a punk.
There was no play at the plate was blocking wrong. I played catcher in high school and every time that happened the catcher was told by home plate ump to not be in the way with no play there.
@@nenev depends on the situation. Play was made at first so the inning was over. Any unnecessary contact after that could be considered unsportsmanlike. Honestly, the ump took his eyes off the catcher, didn’t see the play, and assumed it to be dirty because it was after the recorded out to retire the side.
Unless the rules are different in softball the catcher was blocking the runners path/base. If she wasnt making a play she should have been out the way.
Malicious contact overrules obstruction. Had she slid, she could make the case that she thought the play was coming home. In this case, atleast in USA (ASA) and USSSA, that contact would be at minimum, an out. I personally would give the ejection every time. Blindsiding a 12 year old (or so) catcher who isn't part of the play and putting her on the ground is dirty.
@@alanhess9306 Correct, excessive contact was initiated by the runner. That's why the obstruction rule was put into place - let the umpire make that call. Intentionally knocking a fielder down is not a resolution.
Let's be clear... If the catcher without the ball was laying in a beach chair, in the middle of the base line between 3rd & Home, drinking an iced tea, while flipping off the approaching runner, that runner is still required to avoid contact. This would make the runner slow down, adjust course, while possibly making her run outside of the baseline. This is where the rules of the game show up to protect the runner. If the fielder doesn't have the ball, he/she is to be charged with obstruction and the runner scores.
Peter Miller With the more recent advent of rules updates the catcher doesn’t have a right to block the plate without the ball. I’m assuming softball has adopted the same rule. A play up the 3rd base line they kind of have to look out for each other. The base runner is the one who establishes what the "line" between the bases will be, within reason. You can’t run 4 feet out one way or another but the ump will give you 2 for sure to get past a player from the other team.
you cannot run into catcher into someone on purpose a nudge here or there if a fielder is in you're way is fine that blanety illegal catcher should be taught not to stand on plate. however the runner is still required to know the rules she tuck her arms in
This is incorrect. This would be correct if the catcher was making a play, but the catcher being out of play and standing directly on home plate and blocking it, the runner has every right to do what they did. It is actually obstruction by the catcher.
There was two outs when the ball was hit back to the pitcher. She made the play to 1st base to record the 3rd out of that half of the inning. The run wouldn’t/didn’t count on the play because of that fact. The runner is not afforded the "right to a clear base path" in this situation and was correctly ejected from the game for unsportsmanlike conduct. 😷🤘
The thing is she doesn't know if the throw was caught at first base and whether that runner was safe or not. Either way the catcher was in the wrong and the player shouldn't be ejected
XXIX. Hurdling or plowing over the catcher or other fielders: B. (2). The runner may NOT intentionally run into the defensive player, even if the defensive player is blocking the baseline without the ball.
If the runner has enough time to avoid the catcher but chooses to run her over even putting her hands up and pushing at her it’s an automatic ejection. It’s clear as day ump made the correct call.
Umm what? As someone who was a catcher you’re not allowed to block the plate like that without the ball... the runner has every right to any base including the plate. People are so soft these days and clueless
I didn't know the catcher could cover the home plate like that. How was the runner suppose to know where the ball is at? She supposed to slow down and go around the catcher to touch home plate? Game is not what it used to be. You cover home plate you getting ran over.
But did the runner know that and is she expected to know as much? Also, your argument can be applied to the catcher. Why block the plate if no throw is coming?
@@nathanromero4263 When you have to argue what strangers know you show a flawed position. Every player should know how many outs there are, ignorance isn’t an excuse. No the fielder setting up on a base is like a player starting to run from a base. Thats not running thru someone after the inning has ended. The equivalent would be the running slowing up and the catcher contacting the runner
Even though the catcher was clearly standing on the plate,the play was at first not at home and the runner could've easily ran around her.I think she did that to get an interference call but it backfired.You can tell by her body language after the fact the runner clearly took her out on purpose possibly from frustration.
What happens if the play at first didn't result in the out? Your responsibility as a baserunner is to get to the next base as quickly as possible. You're not trying to go around the catcher.
@@davidtsang4949 3 options: legally slide, pull up, or go around. Every governing body has made clear that they want runners to avoid collisions whenever possible.
Ejected by some fool behind the plate wearing track shoes, untucked shirt, a mask with straps flying in every direction, and no hat, topped off with cool sunglasses. The right call, however.
He's probably a volunteer dude. Who cares? It's little league softball. They should be lucky to have an umpire, period. We're so short umps I've had to work baseball solo a few times this year.
Bro, I hope none of these soft ass commenters are umpires or softball/baseball is doomed lol. All fault on catcher, runner not assuming anything and going hard through the play. If you are assuming that the out was made well before contact, then ask yourself why the catcher is covering home in the first place??
There was obvious obstruction there, and had the runner slid, stopped or altered her path then she'd be safe and still in the game, but she chose to truck the catcher. Malicious contact trumps obstruction so good call.
Go call by the umpire. Only thing wrong is between inning should be 1 minute or five pitches. He injected her at the .33 second mark of the video and didn't start playing ball until the 2:43 mark
Any softball players watching this can we just talk about all the terrible stuff these players are doing. This looks like a 14u team and the way they do stuff is kinda triggering
The catcher was on top of the plate. No need for the catcher to be there with no play at the plate. I suppose by the letter of the rule, you eject the baserunner but some common sense needs to be applied here. The baserunner's responsibility is to get to the next base as quickly as possible in case something happens that the play is still continuing.
@@davidtsang4949 The rule has been in place for many years, now. Your argument does not hold water. The runner has 3 legal options in this situation: slide, pull up, or go around. She needs to be taught to use them.
@@thomaslaborde6367 You are correct in that the catcher is not allowed to block the plate without the ball. That is obstruction. She should be taught not to do that. The runner is not allowed to respond by coming in standing up and shoving the catcher to the ground (especially when no play is being made on her). That is malicious contact or unsportsmanlike conduct. It is a more serious offense than obstruction. It supersedes obstruction, and all youth codes call for ejection. The governing bodies do not want these types of collisions. The runner should be taught to not do that. Playing choo-choo train will get a player tossed from one game and likely susoended from playing another. Those are the facts of life. May be that is not the way it was years ago, or the way you want it now, but that's the way it is.
Except she didn't run over the catcher. The catcher was standing directly on top of the plate. She gave her a little shove but the catcher wasn't supposed to be there in the first place.
Catcher was 100% in the wrong, doesn't matter if its 3rd out of the inning. If the play at 1st was late, and runner was safe, then catcher is still blocking the base. And the UMP shouldn't have ejected the player, its not their job to watch if the play at first is out, its their job to run. Later in the video the UMP yells at the coach "Coach, shut up" ?!?!? This is not how you handle a situation with a coach. And if we want to be picky, damn that first strike ... wow ... WTF was that. This ump seriously had it out for the green team.
I think by the letter of the rule, the umpire has a right to make that type of call but some common sense needs to be applied here with regards t the points you made. I agree with your assertion. Rather than the automatic ejection, I would perhaps warn the baserunner. But the catcher should not be on to of the plate with no play coming home...
@Brian Driscoll Uh, the catcher was draped over the plate. the one foot on the plate is irrelevant. She could have no feet on the plate and body can still be right over homeplate..
@@davidtsang4949 When the rule was rolled out, and as it remains in place today, it was emphasized that malicious contact supersedes (is a more serious violation than) obstruction. Nobody on defense gets ejected for obstruction. They can get ejected if they initiate malicious contact, though. Bottom line: yes, what the catcher did was wrong. What the runner did, however, was much more wrong, and carries a heavier penalty.
@Brian Driscoll you dont play much do you? You cant block the path of the runner unless you have the ball and she was right over the plate. Her right foot was on the plate and her left foot behind ... Her whole body was on top of the plate, obstructing any path the runner would have to the plate. If you cant "tag" the plate with one foot without blocking the path of the runner, where is the runner supposed to go? Common sense has escaped you.
Yeah this is pretty stupid, the catcher is standing on the plate, she can't run over her, she can't extend her arms out and make contact her not viable option is to slide and take her legs out from under her...this is obviously rec ball, just pull the players aside and let them each know what they did wrong...but I'm a softie. Plus doesn't even look like either of them are aware enough to understand the game situation...it's a teaching league/moment
Exactly! Thats what league is for! Obviously the players,coaches,& ump aren't used to competitive ball...the player should have slid but the ump handled it wrong too! I also didn't see the coach being confrontational. No need for the umps little man syndrome..let it be a teaching moment for everyone
She did run over the catcher. However, the catcher was on the plate blocking the baseline which is also illegal. Her intent wasn't to hurt the catchers rather than just touch home plate. Therefore, I wouldn't have ejected her. He can't punish the one without the other...both positions are illegal.
@@milwaukeejt You are wrong. Not every collision involves a rules violation, so umpires must be able to differentiate between plays involving incidental contact and intentional contact. Beyond that, umpires must be alert to the possibility that intentional contact sometimes exceeds what is reasonable in the heat of competition and results in a flagrant act that warrants ejection of the offender.
@@milwaukeejt The USA Softball Umpire Manual offers useful guidelines for handling collisions: “Contact between defensive and offensive players does not necessarily mean that obstruction or interference occurred. … Consider the following: Did the offensive player alter their direction in a way to draw contact with the defensive player in an attempt to draw an obstruction call? Did the defensive player alter their attempt to field the ball to draw an interference call? Could the defensive player actually make a play? Did the defensive player have possession of the ball?”
@@milwaukeejt It is clear that the defensive player blocked the runner from being able to touch the plate without having the ball. And the push was a result of the catcher blocking the plate so she can touch the plate. Therefore, the run counts and the runner should not be ejected. Read the rules.
@@tawtam1 Repeatly, you have your priorities out of order, and your eyes do not seem to function. Was there obstruction? Yes, but since there was no play being made on the runner, the third out was the batter-runner not reaching 1st base safely, and the runner was able to touch home, it is ignored. As for the collision: the catcher was straddling home, motionless, as the runner took 8-9 strides before getting to the plate. That's a lot of time for the runner to decide what to do. If the catcher does not move, the runner has 3 legal options: legally slide, pull up, or go around. She's got lots of time and space to do any of these. Instead, the runner chooses to collide with and *forcefully shove* the catcher, sending her to the ground. That is malicious contact. There is no excuse for it. Completely unnecessary. The ejection is well earned. "Malicious contact supersedes obstruction" and the penalty includes ejection. I suggest you take your own advice, plus go to a rules meeting, attend some clinics, and study the case plays.
The umpire created the situation at the end of the video. He called the coach out and then got upset that the coach came onto the field and even told him to "shut up."
@@schouvler25 the catcher has to give way. You can't block the path of the runner without the ball. Even the play was over a second or two prior. Doesn't matter if it is first, second, third or home.
The catcher was clearly standing on the plate, And she did what she had to step on to the plate.. To be fair, I don't believe that player should be ejected from that game.. (P.S) This happened before and I talked to the umpire and he said, "The catcher has to move if there is no play being made at the plate." So clearing stating that the Catcher is in the wrong as well as the umpire for calling a ejection.
Sorry, but this could not be more clear cut. This is textbook malicious contact, which carries a mandatory ejection in most levels of baseball and softball. Yes, the catcher can't block the plate without the ball, but malicious contact supersedes obstruction in the rule book
For all those that support the ejection, how would you rule if the runner was just as aggressive coming home (on a potential play at the plate), sliding and taking the catcher out that way? Would you not eject for that as well? This was the perfect opportunity to work with the coaches, players and teams involved in how to play this game appropriately and where the catcher should be placing themselves. These types of ejections are exactly why you get coaches that have will have their players slide and take out the catcher. Me personally, I would rather have my catcher take a bounce like this than a potential leg/knee injury. The UMP needs to keep this professional as well. He made this too personal with his interactions with the coach.
There was no potential play at the plate when the inning ended with the out. Youre just creating an apples to oranges comparison. There was nothing to slide for, after the out any contact to the catcher is ridiculous
Not when the runner decided to steamroll the catcher. At that point, obstruction goes out the window. If she wanted to "let the catcher have it," she could have gone in with a nice, hard slide, and put the catcher on her ass that way.
@@mikemedina9634 I agree! I guess these comments are from people who don't train their kids to run when they hit the ball. I guess watch to see if its a foul or fair or assume its a foul ball before running? I think the reason she was ejected was the ump felt like it was avoidable. She should have slid. But also you have to remember we live in times where everyone is soft. The ump was probably more concerned about the catchers feelings being hurt more than her being hurt physically lol
Horrible fucking call.....you can't stand on top of the damn plate to deny the base runner.....if someone doesn't teach that kid her position.....she's gonna get really clocked
Anyone notice that terrible first strike the ump called? Lol it would have hit the batter in the ribs if she didnt move out of the box and he still called it a strike. Nothing like making one of the worst calls in history and then doubling down by ejecting a player from that team for running the bases. Catchers dont stand on home unless you want an acl tear or a trucking. Tag em with the glove...not ur body in the baseline. Coaches need to help youth catchers out by telling them where to stand.
That ain't no real umpire first called a ball well inside a strike and then telling coaches to shut up very unprofessional where his ump cap for being behind the plate also
Clear obstruction. Catcher blocking home plate by standing on it. What do you geniuses think the call would be if the batter hit a gapper and ran into the first baseman standing directly on first base??
No, it would have been obstruction if the play was still going on, but since it was the third out at first base, the obstruction would have been waved off. The malicious contact does not get waved off. It is enforced even after the side is out. And, furthermore, it is enforced over obstruction anyway.
For those who claim malicious contact because the runner's arms are extended, please rewatch the video @ 0.25x from 0:30. The runner extends her arms PRIOR to contact and allows them to flex during contact which reduces some of the impact (similar to crumple zones in vehicles). The contact is also thereby spread along the entire height of both players, further reducing force concentrations making for a safer situation. IF she slides instead, as some are calling for, then you would run a high risk of having the impact occur between one foot of the runner against one foot of the catcher. This would possibly lead to one or both of them sustaining serious foot/ankle injury. I also think that both the runner & catcher are at fault on this play. It could have been handled as a teaching moment w/o an ejection if the umpire would have called the two head coaches over & had them remind their respective players the proper actions to take in that situation.
@@schouvler25 it was bang-bang, you can’t assume as the runner that the play is made. Ask yourself why the catcher is standing on top of the plate if the play is at first? Soft and incorrect call.
@@haydenhodges34 i know what obstruction is that still doesn't me the girl should have been ejected if the persons in the baseline without the ball they can get trucked over because they SHOULDNT be in the baseline I've played softball for 9 years and my moms an ump I know what I'm talking about
@@harperleaann9801 Hey, with all due respect, I have coached for several years, and I umped for twenty. No matter what the scenario (especially in youth softball and baseball), trucking is not permitted and warrants an ejection. I'm certain you're a great player and your Mom a fine umpire. She should know to call obstruction in a scenario such as this, and that rule being enforced is what enables "trucking" to be an ejection.
@@harperleaann9801 Ma'am, please do not think I am being hostile or arguing. We can have a civil discourse. Yes, we both are entitled to our opinions; however, in this case, I have the rulebook as evidence to verify I am correct. "If the catcher is blocking the plate without possession of the ball and the runner makes contact with the catcher before touching the plate, obstruction should be called and the runner is awarded home plate. This would be the ruling even if the runner pushes the catcher out of the base path, as specified in the NFHS softball casebook. If the runner’s push was malicious, however, she would be ejected and the run would not count. NFHS specifies that malicious contact supersedes obstruction, as does USSSA; USA Softball specifies that “if the runner committed an act of interference (i.e., pushing the catcher) after the obstruction. This also would overrule the obstruction.” www.referee.com/collision-decision/
It's a shame she got ejected because the catcher doesn't know how to play her position. The baserunner has a right to the base path and the bag, especially away from the play. Any catcher worth anything knows not to block the plate without the ball, EVER.
Rules in nearly every children's' league mandate the runner slide or avoid a defensive player, and failure to do so is an automatic ejection in a lot of places. This is not MLB. Good call, blue.
@@mac2894 so I want to first say that I like your comment, but.....I think this particular incident didnt really justify an ejection of the player. There are a few things to consider before ejecting. First, was the collision "malicious" in nature?Second, it was away from the play. It was the third out. No run is scored. By rule the runner is not required to "SLIDE", but is required to avoid contact. On this play though I would not have ejected the player. I am not judging any malicious intent there. "Malicious" is the key word there. If she's throwing elbows then yeah, maybe I have an ejection. Otherwise I'm going to warn and maybe try to educate coaches, especially if this happens in a rec league or lower level comp ball. Sometimes runners just dont know how to run bases or what to do. And defenders often get caught ball watching. I'm not runnin' a 12 yr old for something like that.
@@paulalstrom4144 Knocking/shoving the catcher to the ground is sufficient evidence for malice. Nothing carries the message that "this is serious and you better learn it", than an ejection. That's why it was put in place as part of the penalty.
you are right she doesn't know her position, but the runner didnt' have runher over either did she, the out was made and was the third and she and the runner would have known that. There was no need to run over the catcher riskin her and the runner having an injury
@@paulalstrom4144 I understand your point, but as an umpire, no matter what age, if you permit this very strict rule to be ignored by using it as a teaching lesson, you will not be calling games for very long. The view from directors and assigners becomes "If this ump lets one get away with it they'll now have to let all get away with it." Plus, you'll be seen as someone with "lesser than" game management for not putting the safety of the kids first.
I just want to tell you that Jesus loves you very much and died on the cross of Calvary for you. You can accept him as your savior anytime you want dear God bless you very much.
interesting situation as to deciding penalties on this situation.....it was a 3rd out putout at 1st....so run can not score any which way you look at it. it was obstruction on the catcher[if before the 3rd out was made]. denying runner access to the plate....since play has ceased due to the 3rd out, do we then recognize the contact on the catcher by the runner attempting to score? i don't think i could call it malicious contact, and ejection because it was after the 3rd out was made and no obstruction occurred. personally, since it was a grade/middle school game, i, as an umpire would have ruled incidental contact, brought both teams coaches and runner and catcher to a meeting. and explained the rule for future reference by all involved so as to play the game correctly on down the road. then give a warning to the teams about any future conflicts. and finish the game
When a runner comes in standing up, and shoves/knocks a catcher to the ground, that is malicious contact. It is even more egregious since there was no play being made at the plate. Ejection is what the rule calls for, and for a good reason: the governing bodies are emphatically saying "Don't... do... that! We don't want players being unnecessarily injured."
It my opinion I have nothing on this cause it 3rd out and it a judgment call I would give a warning for sure the catcher was not seriously hurt. So I got nothing I talk to both coaches and tell them it a judgment call and can't argue a judgment call
Not sure how you are supposed to avoid contact with the catcher right there. Cant pull up because a throw could come back to the plate (runner doesnt know where the ball is here she just has her head down and is running). Cant easily run around because the catcher is too close to the plate and you would have to stop and come back which again, could take time and a throw could be coming. If she tried sliding in this situation it would be 10x worse and could seriously hurt the catcher. She didnt lower her shoulder. She didnt extend her arms very much other than put them up to protect her chest and face. I have nothing here.
@@richpaul6806 Why cant the catch stand on a plate in between an inning? Anyone can as play isnt live. She has a right? That’s utterly absurd her “right” doesn’t entitle her to hitting another player after live play has ended.
Actually I'm a certified umpire and the catcher has to move if there is no play being made at the plate so the runner has a place to cross the catcher was clearly on top of the plate and no play being made
It's great that you're a certified umpire, and yes, the catcher is required to get out of the way. However, malicious contact, which this clearly was, supersedes obstruction. This was absolutely the correct call.
So the ejection seems a little extreme but there definitely was obstruction by the catcher. At this level, the umpire would have been better off talking to the coach and player.
Yup every league has different rules but every league agrees a base runner can not run over a catcher. It doesn't matter what level of softball it is or what sanctioning body. Should the catcher have been there no, would it have been obstruction if there was a play and she didn't have the ball absolutely.
should of never been ejected she has every right to base and catcher has none without the ball she never lowers shoulder just puts arms up to protect herself
The runner has the responsibility to attempt to avoid contact. Because the catcher is blocking the plate does not give the runner a right to run into her.
@@mattmoehring8021 No, I am not wrong. Do you not know that malicious contact supersedes obstruction and the runner has the responsibility to avoid contact? I have the rule book to back me up. What do you have? You have no clue.
The catcher has no right to the plate whatsoever without the ball The runner only has to avoid contact if the Fielder has the ball if the filter does not have the ball if you ever need to get out of the way of the Runner And wasn't malicious contact she did not lower her shoulder or anything all she did was put her arms up to brace for contact How else is she supposed to touch the plate
So what are you do then if the first Basement is standing on First on a possible double And the runner runs into Her are you Throwing the runner out For making contact with the first baseman No you're going want interference And the runner at second base
Wow, I'm guessing from your ridiculously stupid comment that you've never played, coached or umpired a baseball or softball game. The catcher must give the base runner a lane to the bag, if they block the bag without the ball, that's obstruction and they're awarded the base. Runners must avoid contact, in this case the runner intentionally ran into the catcher and the ejection is automatic. The only penalty for the catcher would be an obstruction call, which in this case didn't matter because the 3rd out was made at 1st. Please learn the rule before opening your mouth, proving that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
@@nasacollector3676 Im guessing by having to pretend others stupid and uninformed you must be so wise The catcher cant block the bag preventing a runner from scoring, yes and the scoring opportunity ended at 0:29 when the 3rd out was made. You seem to be under the impression the play was still live when contact was made. It wasn’t because after the 3rd out the inning is over. Please learn that your unsolicited advice to strangers online is just silly posturing. Hard to claim to be the intellectual when you behave like the fool
