you should keep your negative comments to youself.

the way...

The catcher should have moved out of the way after the cut,He left himself open. The runner has to assume the ball is on the way..

From the way I read this, it appears that the contact was incidental. If the runners spikes were below the fielders knee and he was sliding directly into the base and the fielder was in the process of making a play, it's incidental contact and there is no interference on both parties.

///////

The above incident happened durring a BOS tournament in the fall. The tournamnet director called the runner out. My nephew was on the team that benefited from the call. That call cost the other team a chance to move on. The coach was going balistic, attempted to protest the game and the director and the umpires ran for the hills. I felt bad for the other coach and his team.

Two things:

1. let it rip is childish.

2. catcher is not allowed to block plate with out the ball, period.
You know once the ball was cutoff, No blocking of the plate.
However no cheap shots, let us play ball.

I guess you mean me by "let it rip is childish, grow up"

I'm not sure I understand your meaning behind the criticism of a posting I made after watching a game this past summer. My son wasn't involved in any of the plays. His teammate was the catcher and it was in a game down in East Cobb. Was your kid the runner playing for the team from St. Louis?

But thank you for your accurate assessment. The catcher cannot block the plate without the ball. The inquiry was regarding the umpire's response.

You edited your response but you still didn't explain why its childish for me to question whether or not an umpire should throw out one kid and not the other in a play like that.