Wolverine Devotee

May 26th, 2012 at 10:46 PM ^

And that really is a shame. Michigan has a great baseball history. 35 B1G Championships, 8 B1G Tournament Championships, 2 National Championships. A relatively new stadium (2008).

Hopefully Dave Brandon can make a good hire so the team can get back to dominating, and pulling in big crowds.

MichiganManOf1961

May 26th, 2012 at 11:27 PM ^

Don't block the base then.  If the Indiana player is going to be a whiny little prissy boy about, he could've stayed out of the way of a player trying to reach the base.  It looked like the Purdue player was actually trying to pull up on the slide and accidentally hit the Indiana player's leg, which was a good 2 yards in front of the base.  Indiana guy then started the fight by trying to act like a tough guy and stand over a guy on the ground.  Last time I checked baseball allows contact when a player is blocking the base.

-Herm

JBE

May 26th, 2012 at 11:51 PM ^

I like your style there, Herm. That slide didn't look malicious. It looked like the Purdue player was trying to pull up because the Indiana player was blocking the base. 

Then the Indiana player acted like a Grade A moron. He was just pissed he didn't block that throw from the catcher.

ZooWolverine

May 26th, 2012 at 11:56 PM ^

The Purdue player clearly went into his knee intentionally. That was an extremely dangerous play, completely on purpose.

Also, by the time there was contact, the Indiana player had the ball and was tagging the Purdue player so where he was relative to the base isn't that important. He can be blocking the basepath halfway between second and third for all anyone cares--if you want to get to the base safely, you need to avoid the player, not kill him.

JBE

May 27th, 2012 at 12:04 AM ^

That third baseman was way out of position for a tag. Terrible position. He put himself in danger. There's a reason only the catcher blocks the plate. Equipment. And you can't be halfway up the base path. If you interfere with the runner's path in any way, the runner gets the base. It's up to the defensive player to avoid the runner as long as he's in the basepath, not vice versa. It's in the rule book, homie. 

JBE

May 27th, 2012 at 12:18 AM ^

Not true. It doesn't matter if you have the ball or not. The runner is entitled to the basepath and entitled to the base, and it's the defensive player's choice to take a beating, or get out of the basepath and get in a safer position to make the tag. Why do thing it's a valid play to run over the catcher? If you block the base, the runner is not obligated to slide around you, whether you have the ball or not.

That dude was up the line, blocking the base. He got drilled because he was in an unwise position, then he got pissed because he's an idiot.

ZooWolverine

May 27th, 2012 at 1:30 AM ^

NCAA Rule 8.7.3 says "The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding." Flagrant or malicious contact, which I would say this definitely is, also merits an ejection according to the rules.

In fairness, I had been writing thinking "blocking" was an exageration--thinking the fielder was actually decently to the inside of the base. When I re-watched the video, the player was blocking the base more than I had originally thought, but it was still definitely possible to avoid the collision. You're also definitely right that the fielder put himself in a very poor position, but the batter still needed to avoid him.

Maize Judicata

May 27th, 2012 at 2:04 PM ^

The keywording in the rule is "if he can reach the base without colliding." By throwing that phrasing in the rule, there is a lot of wiggle room here. The runner is not required to leave the base path to avoid a collision. The runner is also not required to tap dance around the fielder. As a result, it could quite easily be argued that the collision was necessary to reach third base.

ZooWolverine

May 27th, 2012 at 5:01 PM ^

It could certainly be argued, but I think the argument would lose 95+% of the time. First and foremost, I think the collision can be avoided by sliding to the outside of the bag.

But even without that portion of the rule, there are two other requirements for the collision to be "unavoidable": the runner must attempt to reach the base and the runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball. He was certainly also going for the base, but I think you might be able to win an argument (not as convincingly--let's say 30-50% of the time) that he was attempting to dislodge the ball (he didn't really go for the ball itself, but if he's just going for the base, he slides at the players feet not dives for the knees). It doesn't apply here, but to give an idea of where the benefit of the doubt goes, any contact above the waist is trying to dislodge the ball by definition).

I would also presume that umpires would take the type of collision into account. If there's a play where the decision is debatable, a slide that appears intended to injure the opposing player seems likely to tip the scale. After all, "unavoidable" doesn't mean all forms of contact are allowed: even if all conditions are otherwise fine, any contact above the waist in this situation automatically counts as interference.

From my perspective (which is not trained in any way, so there's always a decent chance that I'm totally wrong), the only reasonable debate for the umpires is between whether the player is out and whether the player is out and ejected.

ZooWolverine

May 27th, 2012 at 12:03 AM ^

Let me add, after watching it again, that the Indiana player was in the same position while the Purdue player took four steps and then went for the knee. The only plausible way he needed to avoid the Indiana player at the last second is if he was paying absolutely no attention to the  play while he ran. Additionally, he had a the best chance of avoiding the tag if he went to the outside of the base--instead he went straight at the defender on the inside.