Lexington Catholic 15 Danville 2

[Jim Schue]

Knights advance to Applebee's Park with the semistate series win. Tough week for the Ads.

[Hilltopper2005]

Lexington Catholic player rolls a catcher and gets nothing and Harrison County player gets suspended 1 game. The KHSAA needs to fix this before the State Tournament starts. Umpire K.M. suspends the Harrison County player one game and Umpire B.E. lets this go with no call. The Harrison County player should be re-instated. Go to this link to see the picture for yourself. You will need to click on more pictures to see the collision.

 

 

 

 

http://www.kentucky.com/813/story/821013.html

[goallout25]

If you look at the position of the catcher in this instance, he is CLEARLY up the line and not in the home plate area and should therefore not be afford the same protections of the collision rule.

 

I did not see the collision in the Harrison Co. game so I will not comment on that one. But I see no problems with this one.

[Coachg13207]

Lexington Catholic player rolls a catcher and gets nothing and Harrison County player gets suspended 1 game. The KHSAA needs to fix this before the State Tournament starts. Umpire K.M. suspends the Harrison County player one game and Umpire B.E. lets this go with no call. The Harrison County player should be re-instated. Go to this link to see the picture for yourself. You will need to click on more pictures to see the collision.

 

 

 

 

http://www.kentucky.com/813/story/821013.html

 

How can you tell this from a still shot? Maybe the throw brought the catcher into the path of the runner. Unless you were there it may be hard to say from a still shot.

 

:deadhorse:

[Old Ref]

Lexington Catholic player rolls a catcher and gets nothing and Harrison County player gets suspended 1 game. The KHSAA needs to fix this before the State Tournament starts. Umpire K.M. suspends the Harrison County player one game and Umpire B.E. lets this go with no call. The Harrison County player should be re-instated. Go to this link to see the picture for yourself. You will need to click on more pictures to see the collision.

 

 

 

 

http://www.kentucky.com/813/story/821013.html

Sounds like umpire K.M. had the balls to make to correct call, and umpire B.E. didn't. I know who the K.M. and B.E. are, and they are from the same umpires group. If anything B.E. should have to explain why, if warranted, there was no ejection. Plus, that is a still shot, and contact may not have been avoidable or the runner may have gone into a defensive position just before the shot was taken. I also know that they KHSAA has said that the call on the Harrison County player was dead on.

[JohnnyDrama]

The catcher is up the line on that play. Had he been back a few feet and closer to the plate, then I could see an ejection coming. But not from that play.

[Old Ref]

The catcher is up the line on that play. Had he been back a few feet and closer to the plate, then I could see an ejection coming. But not from that play.

This a response from the post on the Harrison County Topic.

 

"Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction. Bottom line, being obstructed does not give the runner the right to clear a path to the base they are trying to acquire. They must go around the obstruction. It is up to the umpire to determine if the obstruction causes the runner to be called out. If that happens (runner called out after being obstructed), he calls time and awards the runner the base."

 

This taken straight from the rulebook, so position of catcher is not always an indicator of malicious contact. Contact can very hard and not always be malicious, and likewise, you don't have to roll a player to have malicious contact called. Bottom line could the runner have avoided contact, and was he the deliverer of the blow or was he defending himself.

[Clyde]

Bottom line could the runner have avoided contact, and was he the deliverer of the blow or was he defending himself.

 

That's really all that matters. The position of the catcher is irrelevant.

[KY Thorobred]

Go to http://www.wkyt.com

Click Sports and watch the video from Friday @ 11 and judge for yourselves.

[Hilltopper2005]

Surely no attempt to avoid contact by the Lex Cath player.

[Clyde]

Go to http://www.wkyt.com

Click Sports and watch the video from Friday @ 11 and judge for yourselves.

 

I can't find the link to the video.

[KY Thorobred]

I can't find the link to the video.

 

Click on the website

Click Sports

On the right is a video player click Friday 11pm Sports

[blackknight8]

Give me a break. The catcher was 2 feet in the grass and in direct line between the runner and the plate. There was no way to avoid a collision and the Lex Cath player braced himself. Great non-call by the umpire.

[KY Thorobred]

Give me a break. The catcher was 2 feet in the grass and in direct line between the runner and the plate. There was no way to avoid a collision and the Lex Cath player braced himself. Great non-call by the umpire.

 

Apparently the rules say he must avoid the collision, so he would have to move out of the way of the catcher and hope he is awarded home.

[JohnnyDrama]

This a response from the post on the Harrison County Topic.

 

"Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction. Bottom line, being obstructed does not give the runner the right to clear a path to the base they are trying to acquire. They must go around the obstruction. It is up to the umpire to determine if the obstruction causes the runner to be called out. If that happens (runner called out after being obstructed), he calls time and awards the runner the base."

 

This taken straight from the rulebook, so position of catcher is not always an indicator of malicious contact. Contact can very hard and not always be malicious, and likewise, you don't have to roll a player to have malicious contact called. Bottom line could the runner have avoided contact, and was he the deliverer of the blow or was he defending himself.

 

So, in other words, it comes down to the ump's judgment call?