MiLB Ejection - Trash Can Thrown onto Field After Play

Double-A umpire Chris Scott's ejection of New Hampshire Fisher Cats Manager Gary Allenson and bench player Shane Dawson is our featured Minor League ejection.

With two out and two on during the 4/29 Fisher Cats-Rumble Ponies Eastern League game (yes, Rumble Ponies, formerly the Mets), Ponies batter Tomas Nido hit a two-RBI triple off of Fisher Cats pitcher Justin Shafer, resulting in a post-play argument from Manager Allenson, who was ejected for arguing a ball call thrown to a previous batter (no video available).

During Allenson's argument, bench player/off-day starting pitcher Dawson threw a trash can and chair out of the dugout and onto the playing field, resulting in his ejection as well, while Rumble Ponies ball boys were pressed into plastic-cup-cleanup duty as former Hartford Whalers victory march Brass Bonanza blared over the PA speakers.

Broadcasting Quote of the Play: "We're told that was Shane Dawson, for some bizarre reason."

Wrap: New Hampshire Fisher Cats vs. Binghamton Rumble Ponies, 4/29/17 | Video via "Read More"

Infield Interference - LeMahieu Collides with Pollock

An extra inning interference call against Arizona's AJ Pollock didn't hurt the Diamondbacks, who defeated Colorado three innings later, but drew the ire of D-Backs fans and broadcasters at the time.

Executive Summary: Due to the runner's actions in failing to avoid the protected fielder in pursuit of a batted ball, this is interference pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10).

Umpires meet to discuss the collision near 2B.

The Play: With one out and one on (R1), Diamondbacks batter David Peralta hit a ground ball softly to second baseman DJ LeMahieu, who ran into D-Backs baserunner R1 AJ Pollock on his way to second base. Initially ruled "no interference" by 2B Umpire Toby Basner, the call was reversed to that of interference on Pollock upon consultation amongst Jerry Layne's crew.

Relevant Rules: Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(10) is clear on the right-of-way rules when it comes to a fielder attempting to play a batted ball: "It is interference by a batter or a runner when—He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball...The umpire shall call the runner out in accordance with Rule 5.09(b)(3) (former Rule 7.08(b))."

Rule 5.09(b)(3), for those wondering, states that a runner is out when he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball."

Diagram of the interference play in ARI.

Make no mistake, however, that "Of course such 'right of way' is not a license to, for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball" (Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment). This same tenet applies to a fielder deliberately creating contact—or the appearance of hindrance—in order to draw an interference call.

Analysis: Pollock only has one obligation as a runner during a batted ball: "avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball" (or "avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball"), which is a phrase that appears three times in the Official Baseball Rules: once in 6.01(a)(10), once in Rule 5.09(a)(11) in regards to a batter-runner's legal exit from the three-foot-wide runner's lane, and once in Rule 5.09(b)(1) in regards to a runner's legal deviation from his established base path.

The reason that three rules make reference to the runner's obligation to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball—including two rules that go so far as to exempt the runner (or batter-runner) from compliance with runner's lane and base path restrictions—is that there is no function for the runner more important on a batted ball than avoiding contact with a fielder attempting to field said ball.

Side angle of the runner-fielder interaction.

With Pollock clearly failing to fulfill this #1 obligation (to avoid fielder LeMahieu), the only question is whether LeMahieu satisfied the portion of Rule 6.01(a)(10) regarding "a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball." If the answer is "YES," this is interference and Pollock is out with Peralta awarded first base. If the answer is "NO," this is either nothing or potentially obstruction and the most likely outcome would be Pollock at second base and Peralta at first.

Ready for the hockey analogy? Think of a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball like a goalie: run into him and it's likely an interference penalty. Why? Because, like a goalie with a puck, the fielder's first and only obligation on a batted ball hit toward him (and only him) is attempting to field it. Like a skater, a runner is allowed to screen the goalie/fielder (albeit, unlike a skater, the runner can't park in front of the fielder), as long as he avoids the defensive player. And, like a goalie who goes after an opposing player instead of fulfilling his obligation to the puck, a fielder who fails to attempt to field a batted ball and instead targets a baserunner may be called for a penalty of his own, in the fielder's case, obstruction. (Things get complicated with two or more goalies...take a look at two fielders interacting with a runner—or with a batter-runner).

A goalie playing shortstop. Photo: Salon.com

Back to the play at hand, with runner Pollock having failed to avoid fielder LeMahieu, the benefit of the doubt is conferred upon the fielder, who, by rule, also possesses the right-of-way for this play. LeMahieu's route takes him to the left-field side of the batted ball, but Rule 6.01(a)(10) makes absolutely no consideration for the fielder's efficiency or route selection. It is immaterial; the only question is whether LeMahieu attempted to field the ball, regardless of his strategy in doing so. LeMahieu does appear to run in the general direction of the batted ball, and there is insufficient evidence to suggest he failed to attempt to field the baseball (Why? Because LeMahieu's contact with Pollock prevented us from seeing how the play would have transpired absent such an interaction). Thus, Pollock failed to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball and was properly ruled out for this interference.

Sidebar: Batter-runner Peralta was not credited with a single on this play (the "batter gets a single on interference" idea is a myth); it was a fielder's choice. Rule 9.05(b)(5) states, "The official scorer shall not credit a base hit when a—runner is called out for interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, unless in the scorer’s judgment the batter-runner would have been safe had the interference not occurred."

Thus, the official scorer ruled that, absent interference, LeMahieu's attempt to field the batted ball would have actually retired Peralta at first base had he been able to complete his intended play.

Bad Broadcasting Award: "The runner is entitled to the baseline." (ARI)
Rationale: No rules support the assertion that on a batted ball, the runner is entitled to the baseline.

Video via "Read More"

Case Play 2017-4 - Hurdling a Retired Runner [Solved]

A recently retired runner is guilty of interference upon hindering or impeding the defense's ensuing play after being put out. Having recently discussed diving over a fielder, we now turn our attention to hurdling over a runner.

Graveman tags two runners as Layne looks on.

The Play: With none out and two on (R1, R3), Angels batter Juan Graterol hit a ground ball back to A's pitcher Kendall Graveman, who tagged out Angels baserunner R3 Ben Revere in a rundown between third base and home plate, while trailing baserunner R1 Cliff Pennington attempted to advance to third base. After retiring Revere, Graveman then attempted to jump over the sliding Revere in an effort to tag out Pennington. Replays indicate that as Graveman began his jump, Revere completed his unsuccessful "pop-up" slide and accordingly began to stand, causing contact with the hurdling Graveman. Graveman's momentum allowed him to complete the play and successfully tag Pennington for a double play in front of 3B Umpire and Crew Chief Jerry Layne.

Is this interaction permissible contact?

Case Play Question: Assume Graveman was unable to complete the double play; that instead of rolling into Pennington, Graveman rolled past the trail runner without touching him. Note the retired baserunner Revere's contact with Graveman's undercarriage during the hurdling action. Based on Rule 6.01(a)(5) [see rules library, below], would the proper call on Pennington be "safe," due to no tag having been made, or "out," by virtue of Revere's actions after having been put out? If Pennington is to be declared out, would it still be interference had Revere not attempted to stand or "pop up," even if the same contact occurred?

Answer: Rule 6.01(a)(5) Comment granting the retired runner protection from interference by solely continuing to advance is interpreted as allowing the retired runner to continue to normally run the bases in the immediate aftermath of his retirement. For instance, the Wendelstedt manual specifies the precise case of a batter-runner who continues running to first base after being retired (say, on a caught bunt or a third strike that results in an out [e.g., a dropped third strike with first base occupied and less than two out]), and specifies that the retired batter-runner may be guilty of retired runner's interference if he interferes with the play being made back into first base while running outside of the running lane.

Retired (or just-scored) runner's INT.

It may help to considered the attached image of a runner colliding with a catcher. In April 2013, Marlins baserunner Juan Pierre scored on an RBI single by batter Greg Dobbs when the Mets unsuccessfully attempted to throw Pierre out at home plate, causing catcher John Buck to move to the third base line extended edge of the dirt circle in order to field the wide throw home. As Buck retrieved the ball and prepared to throw to second base in order to make a play on batter-runner Dobbs, already-scored runner Pierre crashed into him, preventing the play at second base. HP Umpire Jim Joyce ruled Dobbs out at second base for retired/just-scored runner Pierre's interference.

The distinction to make here is a retired runner completing his play or making a legitimate attempt to run the bases versus a retired runner moving unnaturally or along a part of the field that would not be a legal way to run the bases: for the retired batter-runner running to first base, that would be running outside of his running lane, and for the just-scored baserunner at home plate, that would be running into the catcher well away from home plate.

We obviously see many plays involving sliding runners going into bases that result in their retirement, and—assuming their slide doesn't violate any willful and deliberate, anti-collision, or slide rule interference clause—the resulting contact is generally legal and not retired runner's interference, even when it hinders the fielder's ensuing play on another runner.

In Anaheim and Case Play 2017-4, baserunner Revere legally slid into third base in an attempt to elude Graveman's tag. This is a legal running of the bases and itself is not cause for retired runner's interference. That said, if the umpire were to rule that Revere's attempt to rise while Graveman was in the process of hurdling what he thought was a player lying on the ground constituted an unnatural maneuver by the recently-retired baserunner: for instance, if the ruling was that Revere's movements were not in concert with a legitimate attempt to run the bases—or, obviously, if Revere's movements were judged to be an intentional attempt to interfere—then the proper call would be a double play due to retired runner's interference.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 6.01(a)(5): "It is interference by a batter or runner when—Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."
OBR 6.01(a)(5) Comment: "If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."
Definition of Terms (INTERFERENCE [a]): "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."

Video available via "Read More"

MLB Ejection 021 - Stu Scheurwater (1; Buck Showalter)

HP Umpire Stu Scheurwater ejected Orioles Manager Buck Showalter (balk call) in the bottom of the 9th inning of the Orioles-Yankees game. With two out and two on (R1, R2), Orioles pitcher Darren O'Day attempted to pick off Yankees baserunner R2 Starlin Castro and was called for a balk. Replays indicate O'Day started and stopped his delivery while failing to step towards second base before throwing to that base in an illegal pitching maneuver, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Orioles were leading, 4-2. The Orioles ultimately won the contest, 7-4, in 11 innings.

This is Stu Scheurwater (85)'s first ejection of the 2017 MLB regular season.
Stu Scheurwater now has 5 points in the UEFL Standings (0 Previous + 3 AAA + 2 Correct Call = 5).
Crew Chief Jim Reynolds now has 2 points in Crew Division (1 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 2).
*Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(1) states, "It is a balk when: The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery."
*Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(3) states, "It is a balk when: fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. [COMMENT]: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base."

This is the 21st ejection report of 2017.
This is the 13th Manager ejection of 2017.
This is Baltimore's 1st ejection of 2017, 4th in the AL East (BOS, TB, TOR 2; BAL 1; NYY 0).
This is Buck Showalter's 1st ejection since September 27, 2016 (Will Little; QOC = Y [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Stu Scheurwater's first career MLB ejection.

Wrap: Baltimore Orioles vs. New York Yankees, 4/30/17 | Video via "Read More"

MLB Ejection 020 - Quinn Wolcott (1; Ryan Braun)

HP Umpire Quinn Wolcott ejected Brewers LF Ryan Braun (strike three call) in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Braves-Brewers game. With two out and none on, Braun took a 2-2 fastball from Braves pitcher Eric O'Flaherty for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located off the inner edge of home plate and thigh high (px -1.140, pz 1.659 [sz_bot 1.535]), the call was incorrect. At the time of the ejection, the Braves were leading, 9-3. The Braves ultimately won the contest, 11-3.

This is Quinn Wolcott (81)'s first ejection of the 2017 MLB regular season.
Quinn Wolcott now has 1 point in the UEFL Standings (3 Previous + 2 MLB - 4 Incorrect Call = 1).
Crew Chief Tom Hallion now has 2 points in Crew Division (2 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 2).
*Refer to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule) for full ranges; px > .914 are in "always a ball" category.

This is the 20th ejection report of 2017.
This is the 7th player ejection of 2017. Prior to ejection, Braun was 1-3 (SO) in the contest.
This is Milwaukee's 1st ejection of 2017, 2nd in the NL Central (STL 2; MIL 1; CHC, CIN, PIT 0).
This is Ryan Braun's first ejection since April 21, 2013 (Phil Cuzzi; QOC = N [Balls/Strikes]).
This is Quinn Wolcott's first ejection since March 19, 2017 (Rick Renteria; QOC = U [Balls/Strikes]).

Wrap: Atlanta Braves vs. Milwaukee Brewers, 4/29/17 | Video via "Read More"

Obstruction Type 2 Does Not Guarantee Free Base

Contrary to myth, Obstruction Type 2 does not guarantee a runner a free base and even allows him to be tagged out if he attempts to advance too far.

Angel Hernandez rules "Obstruction," Type 2.

During Saturday's Mets-Nationals game, Nationals baserunner R1 Jayson Werth successfully stole second base as the throw destined to retire him eluded Mets shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera and rolled into shallow center field. Werth emerged from his head-first slide and attempted to advance to third base, whereupon he collided with Cabrera, who was pursuing the loose ball. After rising from this collision, Werth was thrown out at third base.

Replays indicate that 2B Umpire Angel Hernandez properly ruled Type 2 obstruction, as no play was being made on the runner at the time of the crash. Rule 6.01(h)(2) obstruction states, “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.”

The comment to 6.01(h)(2) states, "When the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call."

While obstruction type one—that which occurs when a play is actively being made on the runner—guarantees safe passage to at least one base, type two obstruction uses the "nullify the act" principle instead.

Sidebar: This is not manager Dusty Baker's first exposure to Type 2 obstruction (and not his first time pleading rules ignorance regarding this play). Click here for a similar play and discussion of a 2013 Adam Hamari obstruction call. And click here for a comprehensive look at Rule 6.01 (old rule 7.06): "Obstruction, What a Pickle!"

Both instances or types (One and Two, A and B) rely on the definition, "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner."

Thus, the umpires determined that had no obstruction occurred, the runner would still have been thrown out at third base. Accordingly, the out call stood as, to nullify the act, the baserunner would nonetheless have been retired on this play. The award on this play may be said to have been free passage back to second base, as opposed to an advance to third.

Rules Difference: In NCAA/college, the same penalty as OBR applies. In NFHS/high school, this same play would result in the automatic award of one base to the attempting-to-advance runner who is obstructed (8-3-2).

Video available via "Read More"

Injury Scout - CB Bucknor Taken Out by Foul Ball

CB Bucknor left Friday's Twins-Royals game as the result of a foul ball head injury.

With one out and three on in the top of the 8th inning, Twins batter Miguel Sano fouled a 92.9 miles-per-hour fastball from Royals pitcher Joakim Soria into the middle portion of Bucknor's hockey-style mask.

Bucknor was replaced behind home plate by 2B Umpire and Crew Chief Fieldin Culbreth, while base umpires Manny Gonzalez (1B) and Mark Carlson (3B) officiated the field for the rest of the contest.

Relevant Injury History: Prior to Friday's injury, CB Bucknor's most recent departure due to a head injury at home plate occurred on July 12, 2013, when Bucknor was struck by a deflected fastball.

Last Game: April 28, 2017 | Return to Play: May 12, 2017 | Total Time Absent: 13 Days.
Video available via "Read More"

Clearing Up a Myth - Timely Retouch of a Bobbled Fly

Catching a fly ball obliges runners to retouch their bases before attempting to advance, lest they be liable to be put out for failing to properly tag up. This play is so common, it has its own name and method of scoring: sacrifice fly.

Kerwin Danley calls Utley safe at home.

During Thursday's Dodgers-Giants matinee, the retouch/tag-up rule came into question when San Francisco appealed that Dodgers baserunner R3 Chase Utley failed to adhere to the time provisions of the retouch rule: the Giants thought he left early.

Sidebar: The Giants first attempted to appeal after calling "Time," but as Rule 5.09 Comment states, "Time is not out when an appeal is being made." San Francisco ultimately executed the appeal after the ball was put back into play.

The Play: With none out and the bases loaded, Dodgers batter Enrique Hernandez hit a fly ball down the right field line in foul territory, where Giants first baseman Buster Posey attempted to catch the ball as baserunner Utley attempted to tag from third base. Posey then bobbled the falling ball before finally securing possession. Replays indicate that after Posey's glove first touched the ball, R3 Utley left third base; he had clearly broken contact with the base by the time Posey finally completed his catch. San Francisco's appeal that Utley left early, however, yielded a "safe" call from 3B Umpire and Crew Chief Bill Miller, who ruled that Utley had properly tagged up.

Analysis: What are the time restrictions on runners during sac fly plays? When is a runner legally allowed to leave his base to avoid being declared out on appeal?

Time to leave: Split-screen of the first touch.

For instance, if a fielder doesn't cleanly catch the ball, but bobbles the baseball before securing it, when is the runner allowed to leave? At first touch, or at final catch?

It's a fairly rudimentary myth of the game that a runner must wait until the fielder catches the ball before leaving, but it exists for a reason.

Rule 5.09(b) instructs the defense on how to retire runners, and states that the runner is out when—"He fails to retouch his base after a fair or foul ball is legally caught before he, or his base, is tagged by a fielder."

Indeed, the phase "legally caught," "after the catch," or a similar iteration appears throughout the rules book in regard to the retouch/tag-up play.

Only in the Definition of Terms under Catch, and reprinted as a comment in Rule 5.09(a), does the sentence, "Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball" appear.

Based on this seemingly hidden instruction, it's no wonder the confusion persists, but let all doubt be removed: the runner has legally fulfilled the rulebook retouch obligation on a caught fly ball at the moment a fielder first touches the batted ball (even if it's a different fielder than the one who ultimately catches the ball).

Video via "Read More"

Case Play 2017-3 - Illegal Batter Disconcertion [Solved]

In baseball, disconcertion of the batter occurs when a fielder distracts the batter during a pitch delivery in contravention of baseball rules pertaining to unsportsmanlike conduct. Although rare, the most common form of disconcertion is movement intended to disrupt the batter's concentration while the distracter's teammate—the pitcher—is in the middle of his delivery.

Barrett identifies Villar's disruptive behavior.

Baseball's rules book prescribes a precise penalty for unsportsmanlike disconcertion: the offender is to be removed from the game and must leave the playing field. In other words, the penalty for unsporting disconcertion is ejection from the game.

The following play concerns a fielder who distracts the batter, but is he guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct?

The Play: With two out and one on (R3), Cardinals batter Stephen Piscotty prepares to receive a 2-0 pitch from Brewers pitcher Zach Davies. During Davies' delivery, however, Piscotty observes something in his line of sight, and seemingly gives up on the pitch. After ruling the pitched ball a strike, HP Umpire and Crew Chief Ted Barrett motions to 2B Umpire Lance Barksdale to address a Milwaukee fielder before summoning Brewers Manager Craig Counsell to discuss the issue at hand. Replays indicate Brewers second baseman Jonathan Villar—initially stationed on the third-base side of second base—walked across the middle infield and onto the first-base side of second base during Davies' delivery, and, in doing so, purportedly distracted Piscotty.

Case Play Question: Although Piscotty appeared to have been distracted by Villar's mid-pitch movement, Barrett nonetheless ruled the pitch a strike based on its location, while Barksdale delivered an apparent warning to Villar. Based on Rule 6.04 regarding Unsportsmanlike Conduct (see the library, below), was Barrett's decision correct? Should the strike have been cancelled? Should Villar have been ejected?

Answer (Click here for a Video Answer): Although the term "disconcertion" does not appear in the Official Baseball Rules, we're using that word to distinguish between inadvertent distraction and deliberate unsportsmanlike disconcertion. Since "deliberate unsportsmanlike intent" is required for Rule 6.04 to apply, the umpires must determine whether Villar clearly intended to disrupt Piscotty's concentration on the pitch, a high burden of proof.

Note that Rule 6.04 oddly allows for a balk to be nullified (essentially, correcting for a fielder distracting his own pitcher, but not the batter), but not a legal pitch to be nullified. Thus, the strike stands.

With no evidence to suggest Villar's actions rose to the level of deliberate unsportsmanlike conduct, umpires simply warned him—and his manager—not to do to move during delivery again pursuant to Rule 8.01(b), which grants umpires the "authority to order a player, coach, manager or club officer or employee to do or refrain from doing anything with affect the administering of these rules, and to enforce prescribed penalties."

If, after receiving explicit instruction not to do so, Villar again engaged in identical disruptive behavior, his distraction would rise to the level of disconcertion, and may subject him to removal from the game pursuant to Unsportsmanlike Conduct Rule 6.04.

Official Baseball Rules Library
OBR 6.04: "Unsportsmanlike Conduct: No fielder shall take a position in the batter’s line of vision, and with deliberate unsportsmanlike intent, act in a manner to distract the batter."
OBR 6.04 PENALTY: "The offender shall be removed from the game and shall leave the playing field, and, if a balk is made, it shall be nullified."

Video available via "Read more"

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"