I guess my question is " what constitutes on the ground", anything but standing?

That would probably be judgment, on the Umpires part.

 

This rule would make no sense to me just for the simple fact that if the catcher is up the line, a runner is able to run through him, but if he is at the plate then there must be a slide.

So does not allowing hurdling protect the safety of the players? If that was the case, then the runner should not be able to run through a catcher who has the ball away from the plate area and up the line.

 

I personally think that if a catcher is going down to make a tag on a player then the runner should be able to hurdle the catcher to get to the plate. But that is just my personal opinion.

I see your point on safety and keep in mind, I don't write the Rules, just politely discuss with the Umpires at times....

I believe the wording, states "avoid contact, or attempt to slide, if the catcher has the ball"....I'm not certain, if hurdling is addressed per the NFHS Rule Book, other than like CSHS81 indicated. He is correct but to clarify, if the fielder is on the ground, he can hurdle.

 

Anyone know, the actual section/paragraph wording. I don't have my book with me....if memory serves me, should be around the 8.4's or in that area.

 

 

Hurdling is covered under 8-4-2b.2 "Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. (emphasis added) Diving over a fielder is illegal."

My opinion, and the one the KHSAA umpires that were seated with me gave me, was that the runner jumped over the the catcher to avoid the tag. It was their opinions that the catcher didn't tag him (we weren't near enough to say for sure, but it looked like he didn't) but in jumping/hurdling the catcher try to tag the runner, they and I both felt that he was out....

 

They would be incorrect.

That would probably be judgment, on the Umpires part.

 

 

If you find the exact wording of the rule, please post it. I'm curious to see what the rule book states now. And does it define the meaning of 'on the ground'.

 

In this particular play, it appeared as though the catcher was down on one or two knees, which IMO, would be 'on the ground'.

Hurdling is covered under 8-4-2b.2 "Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. (emphasis added) Diving over a fielder is illegal."

....:thumb: I thought is was, near the 8.4's.

This rule would make no sense to me just for the simple fact that if the catcher is up the line, a runner is able to run through him, .

 

Potentially true.

 

The runner's responsibility is to avoid a collision when possible. Train wrecks such as first baseman going for a throw and the runner hitting him are fine. If the catcher is moving into the runner, no problem. If the catcher is up the line waiting for an incoming throw, the player must go around him. FED never allows for a free shot on any defensive player.

Hurdling is covered under 8-4-2b.2 "Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. (emphasis added) Diving over a fielder is illegal."

 

You just answered my request to S3. So technically, the runner in this situation should've been called out regardless of the tag being applied, because the catcher was not 'lying' on the ground.?.?.

You just answered my request to S3. So technically, the runner in this situation should've been called out regardless of the tag being applied, because the catcher was not 'lying' on the ground.?.?.

 

No. He does not have to be face down, stomach touching the ground.

 

Now, if he was on his knees in the baseline after catching the ball, you cannot hurdle him.

 

If he's diving at the runner, as in this case, the glove can be hurdled.

 

Safe.

That would probably be judgment, on the Umpires part.

 

I see your point on safety and keep in mind, I don't write the Rules, just politely discuss with the Umpires at times....

 

Good one S3... I agree with goallout that the rule is set up on behalf of the defense. It can't be both ways, you have to slide to avoid contact, but if you hurdle the catcher your out? Isn't that avoiding contact?

 

To me when we get in the judgement zone there is always speculation on what the right call might be on that particular play. Good reason to have this forum thought isn't it.

Good one S3... I agree with goallout that the rule is set up on behalf of the defense. It can't be both ways, you have to slide to avoid contact, but if you hurdle the catcher your out? Isn't that avoiding contact?

 

.

 

You do not HAVE to slide to avoid contact. Going around while standing is still an option.

No. He does not have to be face down, stomach touching the ground.

 

Now, if he was on his knees in the baseline after catching the ball, you cannot hurdle him.

 

If he's diving at the runner, as in this case, the glove can be hurdled.

 

Safe.

 

I need to see the clip again as I can't recall the exact situation. I just remember the catcher being on the foul side of the baseline and the runner right on (or just inside) the baseline. The catcher appeared to be on a knee and lunging towards the runner as he jumped (hurdled).

I need to see the clip again as I can't recall the exact situation. I just remember the catcher being on the foul side of the baseline and the runner right on (or just inside) the baseline. The catcher appeared to be on a knee and lunging towards the runner as he jumped (hurdled).

 

Agreed on the situation. However, the fact that the catcher is lunging , not standing, not stationary, in my mind makes this legal.

It can't be both ways, you have to slide to avoid contact, but if you hurdle the catcher your out? Isn't that avoiding contact?

 

 

I believe it was cshs81 that schooled me on this before. As he stated, you don't have to slide. This is a rule that is constantly misinterpreted by all (coaches and umpires). Some coaches probably tell their kids they HAVE to slide, just to avoid the possibility of a collision, or misinterpretation of the rule.

Correct cshs81... I was just trying to make a point.

Agreed on the situation. However, the fact that the catcher is lunging , not standing, not stationary, in my mind makes this legal.

 

This still seems to leave a grey area in the interpretation though.