Slide/Veer Rule

Question
QUESTION: Hello Dr. Mark,

First let me enjoy that I enjoy this site a great deal and have learned tons from you and the other experts. Now for my question....

We play in a U16 fastpitch rec league.  I understand the slide/veer rule at base when there is play but what about when there is no play.  Here was the situation.  Bases loaded, batter puts ball into play.  As a play occurs at second the runner at third comes home.  Our catcher has her left foot on or just into foul territory (3rd base side) and her right foot in front of home.  The runner coming home plows hard into our catcher, knocking her several feet back and to the ground.  There was absolutely no play at home (ball was at second).  

The other coaches on our team (and I am sure on the other team) felt that since our catcher was in the baseline she deserved what she got.  I feel that if you have a slide/veer rule for a play at a bag it makes sense that something similar be enforced on a non-play at a bag.  Your thoughts?

P.S.  No the umpire didn't call anything, not even sure he saw it, but that is another story.  :)

ANSWER: Hi Allen,

In a play at any base if the defensive player has the ball the runner cannot remain upright and crash into them.  They have to slide, give themselves up or try to avoid the tag w/in a 3' lane.  You already know that.

In this case your catcher is blocking the base w/out the ball and that is obstruction.  The catcher has no business blocking the plate and the collision would not have happened if the catcher was playing by the rules we already have.  The runner has a right to a direct line to the base.

To impose an obligation to slide or veer on a runner legally advancing to a base that is blocked by a player who doesn't have the ball is not the way to handle it.  What if this runner was on 2nd and trying to touch 3rd and score on a base hit and the 3rd baseman was blocking the base.  Should the runner have to veer or slide before trying to go home?

Unfortunately your catcher hopefully learned a lesson, not to block the base w/out the ball.  I'm glad no one was hurt.

Mark

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi Mark,

Thanks for the response, albeit not the one I wanted to hear  :).  I understand what you are saying and I'm certainly not trying to make a case where the runner would have to slide, that obviously would be silly.  Let me make it clear, the catcher was not blocking the entire base path but about half,  or does even being partially in the base path constitute blocking a base?  But..and this maybe more of a philosophical question at this point ... I see a clashing of ideas here.  

Scenario 1

Let's use your example, runner on second going to third.  That runner, if the third baseman has or is about to receive the ball to make a play, must avoid a collision, even if the third baseman is completely blocking the base.  If the runner crashes into the 3rd baseman, she is out and possibly ejected.

Scenario 2

Same situation, runner on second.  Ball hit deep to the outfield as runner approaches third, the 3rd baseman is only PARTIALLY in the base path say half of it, toward the outfield, watching the ball. The runner, takes a step to the outside, still within the base path and levels the third baseman.  The runner didn't really need to initiate contact but chose to.  I understand the direct line concept, but runner with even the slightest veer could have continued on.

As for the situation in your response with the 3rd baseman actively blocking the plate, would not the Obstruction rule remedy that?  Or does there have to be contact in order for obstruction to be called?

I just see a real irony in the rules.  On one hand you have rule designed to protect the players, even though there is at least some logical basis to allow for some kind of collision (slide/veer) with a play at a base. On the other hand you have a player who can go out of her way to run into some one who is only partially in the base path and may or may not be aware that she is there.  Seems to be screaming injury to me (not to mention setting up some bad blood).  A side question here.... runner decides to step into the 3rd baseman, even with the other half of the baseline open, but winds up on the losing end and winds up on the ground, still obstruction even though the runner decided to initiate contact?

Ok...I think I got all my thoughts in, thanks for listening.  And I'm usually not this much a pain, but this play really sticks in my craw, if it had been my player who had initiated that contact I would have read her the riot act.  Regardless whether it was legal, I just see it as a very very bush league play.

Thanks again and my apologies for being long winded.

Allen  

Answer
Hi Allen,

I welcome intelligent discourse so feel free to discuss your ideas anytime.

Lets do the definition of obstruction 1st

Obstruction is the act of a defensive player not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball that impedes the progress of a runner legally running the bases.

You ask..does even being partially in the base path constitute blocking a base, the answer is probably yes, in the judgement of the umpire was the runner impeded in legally running the bases.

You stated...That runner, if the third baseman has or is about to receive the ball to make a play, must avoid a collision, even if the third baseman is completely blocking the base.  If the runner crashes into the 3rd baseman, she is out and possibly ejected.

that statement is only partially true, if the defensive player has the ball they can block the base and a runner cannot crash into them.  Gone for 3-4 years is "about to receive the ball"  If they are blocking the base and have not yet received the ball that is now obstruction in ASA and NFHS.  NCAA still has "about to..."

As for the situation in your response with the 3rd baseman actively blocking the plate, would not the Obstruction rule remedy that?  Or does there have to be contact in order for obstruction to be called?

Obstruction is the call there, and the rule exists so defensive players allow the runner to legally run the bases. In many cases of obstruction there need not be contact to have it.  I didn't see the play and have no idea of the "big picture".  Some times the runner coming home does not know if a play is going to be made.  They're just hustlin' home as hard as they can.  You might have gotten the impression that I condoned running through the catcher and I don't but they have a right in this case to a direct line to the base and unless it's a flagrant attempt to injure someone there's not much I can do.

On the other hand you have a player who can go out of her way to run into some one who is only partially in the base path and may or may not be aware that she is there.  

I understand what you're saying but it is incumbent on the defensive player to recognize where they are and what play is going on. Again, by rule the runner must be able to legally run the bases without hindered.  If she went out of her way...was she being hindered?  That's a situation an umpire has to see.

A side question here.... runner decides to step into the 3rd baseman, even with the other half of the baseline open, but winds up on the losing end and winds up on the ground, still obstruction even though the runner decided to initiate contact?

This one I have to see, the overriding question is was the runner hindered.  Initiating contact is secondary to being able to touch or round the base.

Regardless whether it was legal, I just see it as a very very bush league play.

I don't necessarily disagree (remember I didn't see it and the whole play) and I have in the past in similar situations said something like "16, I had it, that wasn't necessary") but that's about all I can do unless it's flagrant.

Thanks again and my apologies for being long winded.

feel free, anytime.

mark