Retaliatory Obstruction? Collision Follows TOR-BAL Spat

When Orioles pitcher Fernando Abad's right forearm connected with Blue Jays baserunner Lourdes Gurriel's left shoulder, HP Umpire Jim Wolf and 3B Umpire Shane Livensparger immediately identified obstruction, but was there more to this potentially malicious contact?

With one out and Gurriel on second base for Toronto, Blue Jays batter Randal Grichuk hit a ground ball to Orioles third baseman Jahmai Jones, who threw wildly past third base in an attempt to retire Gurriel, leading to a collision between Abad and Gurriel as the Jays' runner ran toward home plate.

Umpires pointed to the defense's hindrance of the runner in ruling obstruction (type 2, as no play was being made on the runner at the precise moment of obstruction ["If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction." OBR 6.01(h)(2)) and allowed play to conclude with Gurriel scoring and batter-runner Grichuk making it to third base.

At lower levels of play, Abad's potentially intentional initiation of a collision with Gurriel may have necessitated further penalties. For instance, high school's NFHS Rule 3-3-1 pertains to malicious contact, and states, "If the defense commits the malicious contact, the player is ejected." College is a bit murkier, as its flagrant collision rule (NCAA 2-31) identifies a collision "in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball," but common sense could easily help.

MLB/professional baseball has no such rules, however. In other words, this is obstruction (type 2 or B) at all levels, but not malicious in pro ball because OBR does not have such a rule.

Nonetheless, could this apparently unsportsmanlike action have developed from a dispute earlier in the contest? Several innings earlier, Baltimore manager Brandon Hyde yelled at Toronto pitcher Robbie Ray.

Once again, OBR is more permissive than lower levels, such as NCAA's Coaching Ethics, which states, in part, "'Bench jockeying' will not be allowed." So while it may be appropriate—and in some cases absolutely necessary—for an umpire to address this unsporting behavior early on in order to prevent further complications at the NFHS or NCAA level, MLB appears to have largely taken a "let them fight, it's better for ratings" point of view.

Video as follows:

High School Roundup - Iowa Championship Series Slides

A bona-fide/force play slide rule double play at second base and violent home plate collision at Iowa's high school State Championship tournament are today's Ask the UEFL subjects pertaining to what is legal vs interference vs malicious contact vs obstruction.

Play 1 - Force Play Slide Interference Ends Game: Harlan Community High School defeated Waverly-Shell Rock Senior HS 7-6 in the state semifinal following a slide interference ruling at second base. With one out and one on, Waverly-Shell Rock's batter hit a ground ball to Harlan's shortstop, who threw to the second baseman for the force out at second base, and onto first base as Waverly-Shell Rock baserunner R1 slid into second base, resulting in contact with the middle infielder, ruled interference by the 2B Umpire for a game-ending double play.

The Rule, Play 1: National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) Rule 2-32-2f requires runners on a force play to "slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases," while 2-32-2 specifies other violations that would render a slide illegal. They are:
a) Rolling, cross-body, or pop-up slide into the fielder;
b) Runner's raised leg is higher than fielder's knee as the fielder stands;
c) Runner goes beyond the base and makes contact with/alters play of the fielder (except HP);
d) Runner slashes or kicks fielder with either leg;
e) Runners tries to injure the fielder.

Furthermore, a legal slide requires at least one leg and buttock to be on the ground and the slide must put a runner within reach of the base with either a hand or a foot.

Question of the play: Who has run into whom?

Analysis, Play 1: There are two video replay angles we will consider here: the first is from the television broadcast or mid-home press box camera, and the second is from field level beyond the third-base dugout.

The press box camera suggests the runner satisfied all criteria of NFHS's 2-32-2 except the requirement in a legal slide for at least one buttock to be on the ground. That said, when the runner begins his slide, the second baseman has just tagged second base and is now moving down the baseline between first and second base, toward first base and into the runner.

At this point, it would likely be most practical to consider whether the runner's slide was legal at the point at which the fielder began the play at the time when the runner began his slide, relative to whether the runner's buttock made contact with the ground before arriving at second base, or whether it would have had the fielder not made contact with the runner.

NCAA FPSR diagram.

The NCAA rules book contains an excellent diagram for the Force Play Slide Rule, delineating where a fielder is and is not protected by rule. As suggested by the accompanying graphic—which shares similarities to NFHS in that the fielder is protected in the gray area although NFHS itself doesn't use the diagram in its rules book (for one, there should be gray area beyond the base, as in NFHS 2-32-2c)—the second baseman is not protected from a hard slide that occurs directly in the baseline between first and second base, unless the slide is otherwise illegal.

It sure appears the runner remains within the baseline between first and second base and, thus, is legal in that regard.

To determine the extent of any further legality, we must turn to our second camera angle from the stands beyond third base.

Replays indicate the fielder catches the throw and begins his play to first base while even with the front edge of second base, and that he hops towards the runner as he prepares to throw to first base.

Camera 2: Did R1 intentionally twist into F4?

Replays also indicate that while the slide appears more vertical than horizontal, the slide's trajectory isn't part of the rule, unless one were to interpret this as a rolling slide (albeit without much of a roll).

Instead, we look at the runner's legs and cleats (both on the ground), while bearing in mind that the runner twists as he makes contact with the fielder; either way, one buttock does contact the ground prior to the point at which he would have contacted the fielder had the fielder not jumped toward the runner.

Is R1 attempting to pop-up? That's also illegal.

This can be interpreted in one of two ways: either the runner is attempting to protect himself from the collision, in which case the slide is legal, or the runner is attempting to alter the fielder's throw with a hard quasi-rolling slide, in which case the slide is illegal and interference should be called. If, as the second image indicates, the umpire deems the runner to be attempting a pop-up slide into the fielder, interference would be the proper ruling.

Because it's a force play, if the FPSR rule is invoked, the batter-runner is also out.

Play 2 - Obstruction or Malicious Contact: Here we have Wilton High School batter-runner Cory Anderson attempting to complete an inside-the-park home run as he encounters Denver High School catcher Kain Eagle standing in his way without the ball. A wild collision ensues. Who is at fault?

The Rule, Play 2: A catcher in high school is ordinarily treated like any other fielder when it comes to obstruction, which occurs when "The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve" (2-22-3).

NFHS 3-3-1m states that it is unsporting to "initiate malicious contact on offense or defense" and that malicious contact's penalty shall be ejection from the game, an immediate dead ball and automatic out.

Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

NFHS malicious contact is officiated as interference (2-21-1), but has no precise definition. The 2014 NFHS Points of Emphasis suggested "intentional excessive force" or "intent to injure" as possible considerations for malicious contact, but NFHS generally leaves the matter open to interpretation.

In this case, we have a runner who looks to lower his shoulder into the catcher in an attempt to push through a fielder who is plainly obstructing his pathway to the next base. The only question then is, with a fielder who has obstructed a runner and a runner who has interfered with a fielder by virtue of malicious contact, which violation shall take precedence?

Refer to Rule 8-4-2e for a simple solution: "Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction."

NCAA also has a flagrant collision rule, but this only applies when the catcher actually has the ball.

In sum, although OBR has a plate blocking rule that NFHS doesn't, this is because NFHS doesn't need a plate blocking rule: it already has a penalty for obstruction or malicious contact interference as the case may be.

Analysis, Play 2: This one is pretty simple, at least from the cheap seats. The catcher obstructs the runner, after which the runner initiates malicious contact upon the catcher. The camera angle from beyond third base along the stands in foul ground indicates the runner targeted the catcher for collision, which renders the resulting contact malicious.

Pursuant to Rule 8-4-2e, malicious contact supersedes the obstruction, which means the runner should be declared out as in 8-4-2e, and ejected from the game.

Videos as follows:

Diving Over Fielder Legality - OBR, NCAA, NFHS, LL

The legality of a runner diving over a catcher varies by level of play, with professional baseball the most permissive of this maneuver and high school the least.

Click here for Video Analysis of This Play (Runner Diving Over a Fielder).

Legality of Coghlan's dive, by level of play.

The Play: With one out and one on (R1), Blue Jays batter Kevin Pillar hit a 1-1 fastball from Cardinals pitcher Matt Bowman on a fly ball to right fielder Stephen Piscotty. As Jays baserunner R1 Chris Coghlan attempted to score from first base, Piscotty's throw to the plate drew catcher Yadier Molina up the line to receive the bouncing ball, resulting in a rare sequence wherein Molina retrieved the ball in the baseline as Coghlan arrived in the vicinity of home plate and opted to jump over Molina on a modified head-first slide, of sorts, landing on home plate without having been tagged. HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott thus ruled Coghlan safe at home.

Analysis: The first relevant rule is 6.01(i) [formerly Rule 7.13] regarding collisions at home plate. Had Coghlan proceeded along his base path toward home plate—at ground level—he surely would have collided with Molina, who, having barely gained possession of the baseball, stood directly between Coghlan and home plate.

The Runner: Rule 6.01(i)(1) restricts the baserunner, and states, "A runner attempting to score may not deviate from his direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate), or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision. If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (regardless of whether the player cover- ing home plate maintains possession of the ball)."

Coghlan dives parallel to the ground over F2.

However, the most important feature of baserunner Rule 6.01(i)(1) is in its Comment, which states, in part, "If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(1)." Thus, even though Coghlan appeared to have scraped Molina's helmet, neck, and/or upper back during his dive (watch for the contact between Coghlan's knee and Molina's helmet), the blockage of Coghlan's pathway absolves Coghlan of responsibility for this contact. Coghlan is entirely legal in his dive.

The Fielder: Rule 6.01(i)(2) restricts the catcher, and states, "Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw."

This upper body contact is legal in OBR.

Thus, Molina is off the hook because he (1) occupied his position in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (however slow the non-cut-off throw might have been), and, more importantly (2) actually gained possession of the ball prior to Coghlan's arrival.

Outcome: With both players legal and in compliance with Rule 6.01(i), the proper call is the sole consideration of whether Molina tagged Coghlan (he did not) and whether Coghlan touched home plate (he did). Therefore, Umpire Wolcott properly ruled runner Coghlan safe.

Sidebar: Coghlan's leap was a "dive": His body became parallel to the ground in what may be described as a "dive into home plate." A "jump" or "hurdle," on the other hand, generally holds that the runner remains at a more vertical posture, closer to a perpendicular orientation relative to the ground.

NCAA (College) Rule: In college ball, diving, hurdling and/or jumping over the fielder are entirely legal...as long as the runner is able to avoid all contact with the fielder. Rule 8-7 states, "If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or base line with clear possession of the ball, the runner may [avoid], slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). Contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate." Because of this last sentence regarding contact above the waist,  a runner who, all else equal, scrapes the catcher's upper body during a dive, as Coghlan did here—replays indicate contact occurred between Coghlan's leg/knee and the crown of Molina's helmet/back—would be declared out for having initiated contact above the waist (which thus precluded the runner from attempting to reach the base/plate, even though the runner subsequently touched the base).

This head-high contact is illegal in NCAA.

Furthermore, Rule 8-7.2 states, "Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball." The upper body contact provisions in NCAA are somewhat of a double-whammy on a play like this. If a runner attempts to dive over a catcher, but doesn't physically leap high enough to clear him/her, and therefore makes contact with the catcher's head/neck/torso, the umpire shall rule the runner attempted to dislodge the ball, and thus declare the runner out after calling the ball dead and returning all other base runners to the bases held at the time of the "collision." There is no discretion authorized for considering what degree of contact occurred (light or heavy) other than whether or not the contact was flagrant or malicious. If flagrant or malicious contact occurred, the umpire may eject the runner from the game.

To be clear, unavoidable contact does exist at the NCAA level (Rule 8-7.4), but contact above the waist, as initiated by the baserunner, does not qualify as "unavoidable contact."

NFHS (High School) Rule: The Federation rule just might be the easiest: "It is illegal to dive over a fielder" (8-4-2d); when a dive occurs without contact between the players, keep the ball alive, and call the runner out (unless interference is called, in which case the ball is dead). With illegal contact (e.g., knee-to-head, as occurred here), the ball becomes dead. The exception, naturally, is that a runner may hurdle or jump over a fielder's outstretched arms, or prone fielder lying on the ground in the runner's base path. The Coghlan-Molina play, all else equal, is without-a-doubt illegal on the runner's end in high school ball.

Little League: As LL generally uses OBR, this play is legal in youth ball operating under this scheme, as well as leagues that use the "slide or attempt to get around [the fielder]" language. This assumes there is no other league- or level-specific slide rule that supersedes such legality (e.g., diving a la Coghlan would be illegal in a LL that prohibits head-first slides).

Video available via "Read more"

MLB Rules Committee Approves HP Collision Ban

MLB will ban home plate collisions in 2014, requiring catchers provide a path to home plate and runners to slide or otherwise look to avoid contact, if a proposal by baseball's Official Playing Rules Committee is approved by the MLB Players' Association. If the Association, which is expected to approve the rules change, vetoes the proposal, MLB may still be able to institute the rule for the 2015 regular season.

As announced by MLB Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations Joe Torre and Rules Committee Chairman Sandy Alderson, the collision prevention rule will prohibit base runners from initiating contact with the catcher. In turn, catchers will be prohibited from blocking access to home plate. The precise language of the rule change—including procedures, case plays and prescribed penalties—have not yet been determined. Brian Gorman is the only active umpire to serve on MLB's Playing Rules Committee.

Rule 7.06(b) NOTE, which pertains to Obstruction Type B, presently states, "The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand." Though unclear if this definition will be expanded if the rule is approved, the expectation is that the catcher will lose the right to block access to home plate even when in the process of fielding or in possession of the baseball.

With MLB's proposed change to OBR on the table, let's review malicious contact ("MC") and flagrant collision as the terms appears in high school (NFHS) and college (NCAA) rule codes, respectively.

NFHS: Rule 3-3-1 pertains to malicious contact, providing penalties for initiating MC from either the offensive or defensive position. Upon MC, (1) the ball is dead, (2) if on offense and not already removed from the base paths ["out" or "scored"], the offending batter/runner is declared out, and (3) the offending player is ejected from the game. If the defense commits the MC, the umpire shall award penalties that in his/her judgment will nullify the act of MC (similar to obstruction B or fan interference). MC can be used to augment other calls (e.g., MC added to interference, as in NFHS 2009 Rule Interpretation 17 [With R1, B1 interferes with fielder taking throw at first base maliciously so that R1 may advance to 3B; Ruling: Eject B1, return R1 to base occupied at time of interference].

Malicious Contact has been a point of emphasis ("POE") in high school for several years, most recently for the upcoming 2014 season (it claims the #1 spot for 2014 POEs).

NCAA: High school's "malicious contact" compares to college's "Flagrant Collision," as in NCAA Rule 2-30. Additionally, Rule 8-7 is the "Collision Rule" and states "the rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielder at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible." However, NCAA does not presently prohibit its fielders (catchers) from blocking the base/plate, as long as there is "clear possession of the ball." When a collision between runner and fielder occurs, the umpire shall judge whether the defense has provided access to the base/plate and the offense's legitimate attempt to advance/reach in a legal fashion and without the use of flagrant or malicious contact. The specifically states that "contact above the waist that was initiated by the base runner shall not be judged as an attempt to reach the base or plate...The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate)."  The penalties for flagrant collisions are similar to that of NFHS MC.

NCAA recognizes that if a runner's path to the base is blocked, "unavoidable contact" may occur and may qualify as obstruction pursuant to Rule 2-54 (but not if the fielder is in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball).

Therefore, it is clear the present order (e.g., circa 2013 season) of HP collision tolerance is, from least restrictive to most restrictive, OBR => NCAA => NFHS.

It remains to be seen, however, whether OBR will surpass NCAA restrictions in actively requiring, as opposed to simply encouraging its catchers not to block the plate.