Kali

So this play left me with a bunch of questions. High School Varsity game, bases loaded with 1 out. I'm working the plate with a very experienced umpire on the bases. The batter hits a bounding ball directly at the short stop. R2 takes one step and then stands directly in front of short and turns to face the ball with arms at the sides and hands at hips in a position I can only describe as "Jazz Hands". Just as the ball arrives, R2 steps out of the way and short gets hit right in the nuts. My partner signals "that's nothing". The short stop picks up the ball which is at his feet and throws to 1st to get the BR. Then he crumples into a fetal position and the other runners advance. After the play, the defensive coach comes out to talk to my partner. My partner comes in and asks me if I thought it was interference. He didn't call it because the runner hadn't contacted the ball or the fielder. I said I thought that was probably the most flagrant and intentional interference that I had ever seen so we decided to call it. We called R2 out on the interference but let the out at 1st stand, R3's score was taken off the board. So here are the questions: 1) Was this really interference or just really smart base running? 2) When we decided to make the call in our little conference, who should have annouced it? Were we overturning my partner's non-call or was I now the calling umpire? 3) If I thought it was interference at the time, should I have called it then even though my partner had just signaled "that's nothing"? 4) Should the ball have simply been dead at the time of the interference and the throw from short never happened? (1 out only and BR gets 1st) 5) We were thinking that without the interference short would have had time to throw home or initiate a double play, but he didn't attempt either of those things so was his play really interfered with at all? Let me know what y'all think

You can infere all you want but this rule has never been solely about a throw from near home plate. In Fed and MLB, this rule covers throws from anyplace on the field. It is a rare call but you can see calls on a throw from 3rd base or short that pulls the 1st baseman forward toward home and the runner runs into the glove or between the ball and the glove and prevents the catch. These become RLI because there is actual interference. But we are now saying that there doesn't have to be actual interference to call the runner out. So once again I say we have a real problem here. An ordinary play with a grounder to the 3rd baseman who throws to 1st too late to retire the runner, becomes an out if the runner runs outside of the running lane. If we don't call it that way and a coach protests, we lose the protest.

You guys keep talking about a throw from behind the runner, and I get that the intent of these changes was to get the umpire to call the play at the time of the throw and not worry about whether there is actual interference or not. They don't want coaches telling their catchers they have to peg the BR in the back to get the call. All that is understood. But that's not my concern here. What about plays where the throw doesn't come from behind the runner? What about a throw from the short stop? Or a throw from the right fielder? The way this rule is written right now, if that runner doesn't run in the running lane, we're suposed to call them out. That's what needs to be cleared up.

I think a lot of folks are missing the issue here. This rule echos rules in every other baseball rule set and was meant to prevent a batter-runner from interfering with the play to first by restricting them to a specific running lane so that the fielders knew where they should position the throw. By deleting this line from the rule, it is changed completely so that we are now punishing the batter-runner for not running in the running lane regardless of wheter they interfere with the play to first or not. We have a member of our association who was a member of the NFHS rules committee and he is now checking on what the intention of this rule change was and whether or not this is a misprint. Because, intentional or not, it's a big change and should have been included in the rule changes listed at the front of the Rules book and demonstrated in the Case book.

I didn't realize that the rule has changed this year because it isn't listed amoung the rule changes at the front of the book, but by removing the language; or if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw from 8-4-1g1, it changes the entire meaning of the rule. I find it really difficult to believe we are being asked to implement the rule as it is now written. This must be an error.

I'm a bit confused about the whole RLV thing since this a point of emphasis in NFHS this year. I went back and read 8-4-1g and it reads: The batter-runner is out when (g) the batter-runner runs outside the three foot running lane (the last half of the distance from home plate to first base), while the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base. First, this doesn't mention interference with the throw or catch at 1st base and second, it doesn't mention where the ball is being fielded. So a grounder to the short stop still requires the BR to run in the lane or he is out? No matter how much be beats the throw by? Never have I ever heard anyone say that is the way it should be called. In MLB the rule is: 5.09 (a) 11 A batter is out when: In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line and on the infield grass, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead... So here, even though the throw from the short stop would still require the BR to run in the lane, they must somehow interfere with the catch (and the lane is a bit wider). The ball is dead so runners can't advance just as in a normal interference call. In my last Fed game I made a mental note of every time a runner made it to first running outside the runner's lane and it was almost every right handed batter and some lefties too. If I started calling all these folks out, there would be a riot.

I'm happy you're amused and sorry you're sad but the rule says "does not legally slide" for a reason. If they meant to say, slides illegally, they would have said that. When the runner comes in standing up, they did not legally slide. Runners are not required to slide at all, but if they don't, they better not contact a fielder or alter the play. You might want to look at the Case Book for 8.4.2 Situation Y for instruction. The runner standing up is called for interference in a situation where, had he been legally sliding, he would not have been. There is no contact in this example but it demonstrates that standing up and illegally sliding are treated as the same thing.

I guess I understand why you don't want this rule to apply but 8-4-2b states that: Any runner is out when the runner ... does not legally slide and causes illegal contact ... of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. I fail to see why this doesn't apply to the original post situation or any of MadMaxes scenarios. Are you stuck on the idea that there needs to be something other than simple contact to make this illegal contact? The whole point of the slide rule is that contact by the runner with a fielder during a play at a base or plate is illegal if the runner isn't legally sliding.

This actually brings up an interesting and off-topic point. Unlike the MLB rules, Fed does not protect the fielder from an obstruction call when they are in the act of fielding a ball. The fielder must have possession to block. But what if the runner prevented the fielder from gaining possession by doing something unexpected. Think of this play, a BR running to 1st barely beats the throw, but instead of simply over-running the base, decides to try to make a turn toward 2nd and collides with the 1st baseman who then is unable to make the catch. Would we call this obstruction? The 1st baseman didn't have the ball after all, but it was a close play and he expected the BR would simply go straight over 1st base and he wasn't blocking that path in any way. I can't cite a rule here but would never call that obstruction. So back to the play at hand, the pitcher reaching out for the toss from the catcher is prevented from catching the ball because the runner failed to perform a legal slide. Not obstruction. It is a violation of the slide rule. We need to look and see who was doing what they were suppose to do and who was not.

Velho already cited the rule that applies here. 8-4-2b

Back to Fed rules: coming in standing up means he did not legally slide. He then contacted a fielder who was in the immediate act of making a play. That by itself is enough to call the runner out. That contact is illegal. The fact that the ball hit the runner on the hip is nothing since it wasn't intentional. The contact does not have to be malicious to call an out here. The whole point of the slide rule is to minimize the damage caused by a collision. That means we want to prevent situations where two players run into each other standing up.

The only thing I would add is that, when deciding if the field is playable, the fact that the game will have to be continued by another crew should NOT enter into your consideration. The game is either safe to continue or it is not. When you are using Fed rules, the assumption is that this is a school event and the safety of the players is the single most important consideration.

OK, to sum all this up: This was a question about Fed rules so the NCAA interpretations don't really come into this as they have a different rule anyway. Also, we weren't talking about Malicious Contact but legal slides into the base. I think we've boiled this down to: 1) There are two slide rule situations, one for force plays and another for non-force plays. 2) The difference between the two is that in the force play situation we protect the fielder standing to the side of the base from contact by a runner executing an otherwise legal slide and in non-force situations we don't. Note: During a force play, the fielder need only touch the base with his foot while in any other case the fielder must tag the runner before they reach the base, meaning that the fielders are more likely to be in the area next to the base during a non-force play. As a result we are not protecting the fielder in the case they will most likely be contacted. 3) Because we do not protect the fielder in all situations, we really can't say this part of the slide rule is a safety rule. Instead, we are protecting the fielder so they can make a follow-on play. 4) While no rule is "petty", since this isn't a matter of protecting the safety of the players, before calling this one, we have to be reasonably sure there is a follow-on play to be made.

Maven. If a player stealing 2nd slides (using a legal slide) into the feet of a fielder next to the bag, since it isn't a force play, we don't call that an out. If the same exact thing happens on a force play, we DO call him out for violating the FPSL. Because we don't call the same thing in both situations, this can't be a safety rule. We are only calling the out on the force play because the runner deprived the fielder the ability to make the play. That is how this goes logically.

So noumpere, you're saying the Force Play Slide Rule is NOT a safety rule designed to protect the fielder but simply a fair play rule?