High School Roundup - Iowa Championship Series Slides

[Lindsay]

A bona-fide/force play slide rule double play at second base and violent home plate collision at Iowa's high school State Championship tournament are today's Ask the UEFL subjects pertaining to what is legal vs interference vs malicious contact vs obstruction. Play 1 - Force Play Slide...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[maven]

Regarding the play at 2B, Gil's conclusion is only half right: "If, as the second image indicates, the umpire deems the runner to be attempting a pop-up slide into the fielder, interference would be the proper ruling."

This is an FPSR violation, which is treated as INT but includes a further penalty. For INT, we might or might not rule the BR out (or another runner). For a FPSR violation, the BR is out by rule.

In addition, with ordinary INT, other runners return to their TOI bases. With FPSR, the penalty requires returning runners to their TOP bases (8-4-2b PENALTY).

These differences might not make a difference to this particular play, but they're worth remembering them, especially when we have to explain to coach why the BR is out by rule (not because of a "possible double play").

[Jimurray]

I think the NCAA interp would also apply in this FED case.

We don't have an angle that shows if the fielder sidestepped enough to be in protected territory but his initial position suggest his momentum was not directly to 1B and he might have been.

[hbk314]

Frankly, I believe both calls were missed.

On the first call, the angle isn't great, but I believe the runner's slide was affected by his trying to protect himself from the fielder coming down on top of him.

On the second call, the runner can see the catcher being led into the baseline by the throw. He certainly, in my opinion, had the opportunity to try to avoid the contact or protect himself. Instead he chose to lower his shoulder and take the catcher out. I have malicious contact, out, ejection and no run. Even though I have the benefit of replay, I still don't really see how this wasn't called in real-time.

[beerguy55]

3 minutes ago, hbk314 said:

Frankly, I believe both calls were missed.

On the first call, the angle isn't great, but I believe the runner's slide was affected by his trying to protect himself from the fielder coming down on top of him.

On the second call, the runner can see the catcher being led into the baseline by the throw. He certainly, in my opinion, had the opportunity to try to avoid the contact or protect himself. Instead he chose to lower his shoulder and take the catcher out. I have malicious contact, out, ejection and no run. Even though I have the benefit of replay, I still don't really see how this wasn't called in real-time.

Umpire likely can't see the elbows/shoulders and driving through from his angle - he sees OBS and a collision - but the catcher is directly between PU and the runner.

[hbk314]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

Umpire likely can't see the elbows/shoulders and driving through from his angle - he sees OBS and a collision - but the catcher is directly between PU and the runner.

Could he have been better positioned?

Regardless, I think the lack of attempt to slow up or avoid the contact is enough for MC even without the lowering of the shoulder. I don't think you get a collision that violent unless the runner's trying for it.

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, hbk314 said:

Frankly, I believe both calls were missed.

On the first call, the angle isn't great, but I believe the runner's slide was affected by his trying to protect himself from the fielder coming down on top of him.

On the second call, the runner can see the catcher being led into the baseline by the throw. He certainly, in my opinion, had the opportunity to try to avoid the contact or protect himself. Instead he chose to lower his shoulder and take the catcher out. I have malicious contact, out, ejection and no run. Even though I have the benefit of replay, I still don't really see how this wasn't called in real-time.

To me:

The runner started the slide and saw the fielder not directly in the path of his slide so he curled his torso to make contact which  was probably in the fielders protected zone. The torso curl was started before contact. The contact was either with the runners right foot and the fielder's pivot foot (maybe in the protected zone or part of it in front of 2B) or the runners torso with the fielder's lower body. It's judgment as to whether that contact was in a direct line with 1B or to the outfield side of that direct line. 

The runners lead, left, leg, on a direct line from 2B to 3B makes no contact with the fielder. The fielder canted his step to the outfield side of the basepath and may or may not have been protected. 

At the time of contact the runner still did not have his buttocks on the ground. I think the runner knew what he was doing and modified his slide to contact the fielder on the outfield side of the basepath to break up the DP

[hbk314]

29 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

To me:

The runner started the slide and saw the fielder not directly in the path of his slide so he curled his torso to make contact which  was probably in the fielders protected zone. The torso curl was started before contact. The contact was either with the runners right foot and the fielder's pivot foot (maybe in the protected zone or part of it in front of 2B) or the runners torso with the fielder's lower body. It's judgment as to whether that contact was in a direct line with 1B or to the outfield side of that direct line. 

The runners lead, left, leg, on a direct line from 2B to 3B makes no contact with the fielder. The fielder canted his step to the outfield side of the basepath and may or may not have been protected. 

At the time of contact the runner still did not have his buttocks on the ground. I think the runner knew what he was doing and modified his slide to contact the fielder on the outfield side of the basepath to break up the DP

How much protection does the fielder get when he moves into the line between 1st and 2nd?

 

As Gil said, "Instead, we look at the runner's legs and cleats (both on the ground), while bearing in mind that the runner twists as he makes contact with the fielder; either way, one buttock does contact the ground prior to the point at which he would have contacted the fielder had the fielder not jumped toward the runner." I agree with this statement.

 

"This can be interpreted in one of two ways: either the runner is attempting to protect himself from the collision, in which case the slide is legal, or the runner is attempting to alter the fielder's throw with a hard quasi-rolling slide, in which case the slide is illegal and interference should be called."

 

Ultimately I believe the runner was trying to protect himself and deserves the benefit of the doubt as the fielder moved into an area where I don't believe he's protected.