Would you EJ?

[BT_Blue]

I would like Michael (our resident LL moderator) to weigh in on the INT or at least the EJ at second with the high cleats.

Now we all agree that that act was dangerous and should have disqualified the kid. However do we still give him second because the ball popped out or do we call him out because of the malicious intent in the slide.

Also do we not, do the the intent of the slide, now have interference on R1 and because in our judgement (maybe) there was the possibility of turning two. Thusly getting the second out.

Now mind you I am stuck in FED and NCAA frame of mind since that is mainly what I do and alot of the leagues use the FPSR from either FED or NCAA in their local rule books. Help me out here with OBR or LL since its not usually something I do.

[catoblue]

Cato:

Great discussion-this is why I like this site (umpire-empire) as opposed to others--nobody got rude in the thread. I think we'll just have to disagree. This is a debate (the confuse/hinder) I've discussed with others in the past and as the District (XV VA) clinician I've advised not to call interference without contact as I think you're getting into a protestable situation.

Understood why you would recommend against it, and in most cases, I probably don't call it either, however, in a situation like this, where the intent to hurt an opposing player is obvious, I call INT. If the coach wants to protest, he can go ahead because 7.09(j) covers it.

Not only did R2 not make any attempt to avoid F6 attempting to field a batted ball, he "loaded up" (shoulder down, arms in, afterburners on) to run him over. I have INT. Again HTBT. Not your every-day scenario.

In this situation, waiting to call it only after there is contact, means that there will be injuries to deal with. Any BoD member with half a brain would prefer to let the out stand vs. the liability for any injuries that happen because of a "no-call".

Incidentally, this play should have never happened because R2 should have been ejected two pitches earlier on the cleats-up slide into 2B.

[catoblue]

While I know the SS pulled up to avoid injury from your description, it would be an easier call to make if there is contact. Reason being that the umpire can't tell if the fielder pulled up due to the runner or he misjudged the ball.

For sure - w/o contact, not an easy call, but again, HTBT - this kid was looking to flatten F6 - it was blatantly obvious.

So, it would be tough to explain to a coach that his runner interfered when everyone's perception of the play may not be the same as the umpire's. This is definitely a HTBT to see how obvious the INT was. It may not have been so obvious to an objective standpoint like the umpire's(if he knows what he is doing).

Again, right on the money. These umps were of the "ball/strike, safe/out and that's it" variety. Anything deeper in the rule book, and they need to go to the coaches for help (yes, that bad).

I understood the OP but calling INT without contact is tough to do in many cases. As for F5 contact, if R2 ran into him deliberately, then there could still be OBS but an EJ follows with a new runner coming out to take his place. Again, another HTBT issue. It does sound like the runner should have been Ej'd for his slide but still HTBT to see what he did to cause the issue.

The slide was blatent attempt to break up a DP, his cleats were 3 feet off the ground, aimed at F4's glove arm - which he hit quite accurately. I don't know as I'd have him with INT on that one, since his feet hit at roughly the same time as the ball got to F4's glove - e.i. F4 did not have possession of the ball. I would have had the EJ with a sub coming in.

Basically, this is one of those events where it is entirely a HTBT issue. While I know you are an umpire and know the rules, you were still the coach and may not have seen things the way you would have as an umpire. Based upon your description(as a coach), I would side with you for the most part(INT issue is still in the air). But, possibly seeing it, the view may be different.

I went into this game as objective as possible - it's the first-place, undefeated team against our 2-8-1 third from last place team. That we came away losing only 9-0 was actually better than I could have hoped for. We were all expecting it to be an NBA score for them and a hockey score for us.

Nothing riding on this one for us at all.

This is my last year coaching, and I even managed to get into an AC role instead of being the manager (what a difference in the number of headaches!). I coach and instruct the kids, but for some reason, don't get emotionally involved in the games. Maybe I've already got myself into the mindset of next year's umpiring only involvement a little early. Needless to say, I watch the game more from an umpire point of view than from a coach or spectator point of view. I see tons of stuff that our kids could/would/should get called for, and instruct them when I see it - before they actually get called for them, and the same with our opponents. Generally, if I see that the umpires are missing things during the game, I leave it alone and will often approach them after the game with "good game, thank you for calling it", then I'll ask them if they're open for suggestions from a guy that's been doing this for 25+ years (actually getting close to 30). If they say yes, I offer an evaluation of what I saw during the game - good and bad, if they say no, I leave it at that.

This particular game - the problems I saw were with only one kid, the biggest kid on the field - who seems to have a little "bully" in his blood. It's a shame, because this kid is a really good ball player (their "star" player). Come tourney-time, I see him getting tossed and having to sit the mandatory 1 game suspension. and after that, I see him getting cut from the school team because he can't keep himself in a game long enough to contribute.

I did send an email to his coach, with my concerns about what this kid faces when he gets to tourney-time and has some trained, experienced umpires - in hopes they instruct him ahead of time so he doesn't get himself tossed. What a waste it would be for a talented kid to chase himself out of baseball.

[Mr Umpire]

I would like Michael (our resident LL moderator) to weigh in on the INT or at least the EJ at second with the high cleats.

Now we all agree that that act was dangerous and should have disqualified the kid. However do we still give him second because the ball popped out or do we call him out because of the malicious intent in the slide.

Also do we not, do the the intent of the slide, now have interference on R1 and because in our judgement (maybe) there was the possibility of turning two. Thusly getting the second out.

Now mind you I am stuck in FED and NCAA frame of mind since that is mainly what I do and alot of the leagues use the FPSR from either FED or NCAA in their local rule books. Help me out here with OBR or LL since its not usually something I do.

In OBR, unless the local rules call for an out, there is only the ejection. An out is not awarded b/c the fielder dropped the ball on the play. If the local rules call for an out as well as the EJ, then there is an out and EJ. Otherwise, just the EJ. I will not comment on LL except they follow much of the OBR in rules. Of course, in OBR, there is no EJ for MC. Local rules define that.

Also, no DP is awarded in OBR for this situation. Just like in MLB where as long as they can reach the bag, the runner can slide toward the fielder unless local rules change that. So, I do not think the slide warrants a DP in OBR.

Only Fed, NCAA, possibly LL, and local rules provide for a DP on this play. OBR does not. Under OBR, it would be just tough luck for the kid.

[PeteBooth]

OK, coaches hat on my head for this one...

Bottom of 1st 0 outs, R1 (This kid is about 5'10" and 200 lbs).

Ground ball to F5, who scoops it and throws to F4. R1 slides into 2B with cleats 3 feet in the air, hits F4 in the glove arm with cleats and ball gets dropped - F4's arm is bleeding from cleat marks. By the way, this was clearly intentional to break up the DP.

Now, were I calling this game, R1 is gone. The bozos that were calling the game, however, did nothing about it until at the half inning I called BU aside and said I'm concerned that he didn't at minimum, issue a warning - which he promptly did.

Anyone else here that would have punched this kid's ticket for going in to 2B with the cleats into F4's arm? (remember this is LL!)

You mention "remember this is LL" but LL has NO saftey rules when it comes to sliding.

Could the runner reach second base with his hand - It's obvious from your OP. That is the requirement for LL.

In LL you can leap, jump over dive etc. over a fielder. In HS played by FED rules you can NEVER dive (automatic out) and you can only hurdle if a fielder is prone.

The LL joke of a safety rule is 7.08(a-3) however, the fielder has to have actual possession of the ball and be waiting to make a tag.

LL has no FPSR or MC rule.

Therefore, if you are going to vent then vent to LL hdqtrs.

In the play you describe you can "stretch" rule 7.09F but as mentioned it is a stretch.

Bottom Line in LL you can slide like the PROS. When will it change?

1. If it becomes an insurance issue and apparently as of this point in time it has not

OR

2. a PR issue meaning suppose the play you presented happend during the LL regionals or LLWS as seen on ESPN / ABC and nothing was called because as mentioned LL does not have a FPSR or MC rule then because of PR pressure LL would most likely adopt an MC rule.

Save your ranting for WP.

Pete Booth

[BrianC14]

Interesting that those that are calling for INT to be called when F6 is fielding state that intent doesn't come into play, and yet then the argument is that F6 doesn't field the ball because he doesn't want to get hurt.

Well if that's not reading intent (on F6's part) then I don't know what is.

Suppose F6 HAD stepped in front of R2 (let's forget he's attempting to field the ball for a moment) - and F6 created a collision - is that going to be INT on R2 simply because he's physically larger?

Again, screening out isn't illegal - the clear implication of HINDERING the fielder from making a play implies that a runner PREVENTED the fielder from doing his job. Had F6 stepped up and tried to field the ball, and was HINDERED from doing so, then I would likely have INT.

You can't just decide to call INT on a runner because he has done something previously in the game that was wrong - that play is over - forget it.

And since I mentioned that - the potential INT call on R2 would have been avoided if this "big boy" had been ejected for unsporting behavior to begin with.

I'm starting to wonder if the INT call isn't just payback for the earlier incident.... hmmmm...

And the play at 3rd- that's a definite HTBT play - so he shoves F5 - the fielder who wasn't in possession of the ball - so F5 is standing "behind 3B" - (what an interesting place to be standing when we were first told that he was getting ready to receive a throw... hmmm....) - do we know that R2 was perhaps trying to round 3B, and was prevented / slowed down? Maybe OBS is the call here, rather than INT? Hmmm....

Just some food for thought - a great deal of what's here is HTBT stuff.

Edited June 10, 2009 by BrianC14

[willv28]

OK, coaches hat on my head for this one...

Last night, LL majors game: For starters, I had an idea on what we had for umpires right from the plate conference: BIG deer-in-the-headlights look when they mentioned DBT and I said "2 from the field and 1 from the mound, right?":jerkit:

Bottom of 1st 0 outs, R1 (This kid is about 5'10" and 200 lbs).

Ground ball to F5, who scoops it and throws to F4. R1 slides into 2B with cleats 3 feet in the air, hits F4 in the glove arm with cleats and ball gets dropped - F4's arm is bleeding from cleat marks. By the way, this was clearly intentional to break up the DP.

Now, were I calling this game, R1 is gone. The bozos that were calling the game, however, did nothing about it until at the half inning I called BU aside and said I'm concerned that he didn't at minimum, issue a warning - which he promptly did.

Anyone else here that would have punched this kid's ticket for going in to 2B with the cleats into F4's arm? (remember this is LL!)

Next play, grounder to 4'6" F6, the un-ejected (big-boy) R2, runs straight line towards 3B, keeping F6 from fielding the ball - here I have INT since F6 had to to choose: stop or get splattered! No call from the umpires, but it gets even better...

Ball gets past F6, F7 is charging and bare hands the ball to throw to F5, who is standing just behind 3B, Before the throw gets there, R2 shoves F5 out of the way and heads home to score!!!!! Again no calls by the crew.

Absolutely clueless!!! Oh yeah, the BU would line up right behind F1 (infield) with runners on - on a 60' diamond!?!

My only thought by the end of the game was "...and they PAY for umpires like this?!" We play in a multi-community league, where ours is the only one that doesn't pay - I'll take our volunteers over these clowns any day!

I may have ejected him based on what you described. However, on the INT, not so sure. The only way I would have INT would be if the fielder was in the spot actually fielding the ball into the glove requiring the runner to avoid him. How hard the runner is charging or how scared the fielder is of him is irrelevant something happens that especially appears deliberate, then I'm one PO'd umpire. Now if the runner is deliberately running towards the 3B and diverts his path to follow the fielder out of his lane for the purpose of confusing (ie, running towards the infield or something), or possibly deliberately colliding with him, then I would have INT in that case too and an EJ if it's too much. But that means I felt he was deliberately trying to hunt the fielder down with "purpose". If the runner moves and then the fielder isn't in a position to field the ball, then he needs to move. But not just because he was running hard between the bases.

Or something like that...

[catoblue]

This has turned int a great discussion! As usual, UE members continue to keep it civil and talk about the situation - KUDOS gang!

Interesting that those that are calling for INT to be called when F6 is fielding state that intent doesn't come into play, and yet then the argument is that F6 doesn't field the ball because he doesn't want to get hurt.

Well if that's not reading intent (on F6's part) then I don't know what is.

Correct - Intent is not "required" to have INT, however, when R2 sees F6 coming in on a ground ball, pulls in his arms, lowers his shoulders and speeds up to get to the spot where F6 is headed to field the ball, intent is present, obvious, and prevents F6 from an opportunity to field the ball - either by stopping to save his hide, or getting steam-rolled and not being able to make a play.

Suppose F6 HAD stepped in front of R2 (let's forget he's attempting to field the ball for a moment) - and F6 created a collision - is that going to be INT on R2 simply because he's physically larger?

No, if F6 gets in the way while not attempting to field the ball, it's OBS.

Again, screening out isn't illegal - the clear implication of HINDERING the fielder from making a play implies that a runner PREVENTED the fielder from doing his job. Had F6 stepped up and tried to field the ball, and was HINDERED from doing so, then I would likely have INT.

R2 did hinder F6 from making a play on a batted ball. There were two possible outcomes:

1) F6 stops his charge on the ball out of self preservation

2) F6 gets flattened by the kid looking to run him over

Again, R2 pulled in his arms, lowered his shoulder and increased speed to try to get to the spot where F6 would have fielded the ball.

You can't just decide to call INT on a runner because he has done something previously in the game that was wrong - that play is over - forget it.

Separate play, had nothing to do with the previous play, other than starting to show a pattern. The INT would be strictly based on R2's actions while running to 3B

And since I mentioned that - the potential INT call on R2 would have been avoided if this "big boy" had been ejected for unsporting behavior to begin with.

Certainly

I'm starting to wonder if the INT call isn't just payback for the earlier incident.... hmmmm...

Nope. Separate play. In any case, neither call was made in the game.

And the play at 3rd- that's a definite HTBT play - so he shoves F5 - the fielder who wasn't in possession of the ball - so F5 is standing "behind 3B" - (what an interesting place to be standing when we were first told that he was getting ready to receive a throw... hmmm....) - do we know that R2 was perhaps trying to round 3B, and was prevented / slowed down? Maybe OBS is the call here, rather than INT? Hmmm....

F5 was waiting for a throw from F7, who came in on the grounder that got past F6 on the uncalled INT. A throw coming from behind F6 would have F5 standing behind the bag - to avoid an OBS call. R2 whose path had initially been "in" when he was looking to run over F6, changed to "out" as he got closer to 3B, so he could get a good bead on F5. I don't know about anyone else, but I was always taught to round a base with my foot hitting the inside corner of the bag.

Just some food for thought - a great deal of what's here is HTBT stuff.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

[catoblue]

You mention "remember this is LL" but LL has NO saftey rules when it comes to sliding.

Could the runner reach second base with his hand - It's obvious from your OP. That is the requirement for LL.

In LL you can leap, jump over dive etc. over a fielder. In HS played by FED rules you can NEVER dive (automatic out) and you can only hurdle if a fielder is prone.

The LL joke of a safety rule is 7.08(a-3) however, the fielder has to have actual possession of the ball and be waiting to make a tag.

LL has no FPSR or MC rule.

Therefore, if you are going to vent then vent to LL hdqtrs.

In the play you describe you can "stretch" rule 7.09F but as mentioned it is a stretch.

Bottom Line in LL you can slide like the PROS. When will it change?

1. If it becomes an insurance issue and apparently as of this point in time it has not

OR

2. a PR issue meaning suppose the play you presented happend during the LL regionals or LLWS as seen on ESPN / ABC and nothing was called because as mentioned LL does not have a FPSR or MC rule then because of PR pressure LL would most likely adopt an MC rule.

Save your ranting for WP.

Pete Booth

All valid points Pete.

LL DOES need a MC rule.

In this situation (cleats-up slide), I would have justified an EJ with Unsportsmanlike conduct. Any time a player tries to hurt another player - I am more than comfortable throwing the 9.01(d) trump card - and doubt any of the coaches in our league would have a problem with it.

By the way, I heard back from this kid's coaches, and they're tired of trying to tell this kid to stop trying to hurt the smaller kids. Apparently, it goes in one ear and out the other - at this point, they're hoping he gets tossed from a game or two so that maybe he'll get the message.

[LLWS#32]

Cato:

If the player's coaches are serious about sending a message then suggest that they limit the kid to his 3 defensive outs and his 1 at bat (spec. pinch run if he reaches safely). You'll find out then which side of the fence the adults are really on!

[RenoUmp]

Only a thought here, but I wouldn't hold the runner's size against him. As far as all the calls, had to be there as they are all judgement calls.

[HokieUmp]

If you are from the HR's area (a LL hotbed) then you know that in LL--major rule emphasis several years ago--that the defensive player without actual ball possession must give access to the base--waiting on the ball to arrive does not count as possession and obstruction could be called here. Of course if the runner went out of his way to shove F5 (as opposed to simply running into him) you could certainly get an EJ after the dust has settled.

Well, it might be a LL hotbed, but I'm not a LL umpire, unless assigned. I have worked Majors, Juniors and Seniors. But I don't follow the LL Points O' Emphasis like I would FED or OBR.

I understand that waiting for a throw isn't possession, and I know access must be allowed - not much different than other codes - but complete access, nor the preferred access (on the runner's part) isn't required.

If I had a runner that wasn't looking to round the bag (as this one wasn't), and an F5 waiting for a throw to come to him: if that F5 is straddling the bag, but not really blocking access to it (ie, our big fella can get his foot on the bag by stepping on it or sliding into it), I'm not calling OBS. Straddling the bag, even if the F5's body is over the bag, isn't denying access.

The runner in the OP decided to "round" the bag by going through the F5, so that he'd miss the ball. THEN he's got the reason - "the ball's not fielded" - to go home.

Again, judging by the OP, and how one would field a ball coming in, I'm just not getting OBS on that play.

[catoblue]

Cato:

If the player's coaches are serious about sending a message then suggest that they limit the kid to his 3 defensive outs and his 1 at bat (spec. pinch run if he reaches safely). You'll find out then which side of the fence the adults are really on!

Right-on!

I've coached against this guy in the past, and his players are generally extremely well coached. The things this kid did doesn't flow with what is normal for this guy's teams. I sensed some serious frustration in the reply I got too.

We'll see what we hear about during the playoff's that start next week.

[scobes7]

Cato:

If the player's coaches are serious about sending a message then suggest that they limit the kid to his 3 defensive outs and his 1 at bat (spec. pinch run if he reaches safely). You'll find out then which side of the fence the adults are really on!

Cough....Cough.....6 outs and 1AB.... the above mentioned is for tournament rules only

[blue32]

All valid points Pete.

LL DOES need a MC rule.

In this situation (cleats-up slide), I would have justified an EJ with Unsportsmanlike conduct. Any time a player tries to hurt another player - I am more than comfortable throwing the 9.01(d) trump card - and doubt any of the coaches in our league would have a problem with it.

By the way, I heard back from this kid's coaches, and they're tired of trying to tell this kid to stop trying to hurt the smaller kids. Apparently, it goes in one ear and out the other - at this point, they're hoping he gets tossed from a game or two so that maybe he'll get the message.

That's one of my pet peeves. I have had a few coaches come to me over the years and tell me if so and so does so and so, it's ok to eject them. I tell them not a problem, but the fact that they are telling me this means they have a serious problem with this kid and should deal with it themselves, rather than try to offload their problem to the umpires.

[BrianC14]

Cato:

I know that intent isn't necessary - that's what I was on about in my earlier post... intent isn't relevant to the rule. :smachhead:

[mstaylor]

That's one of my pet peeves. I have had a few coaches come to me over the years and tell me if so and so does so and so, it's ok to eject them. I tell them not a problem, but the fact that they are telling me this means they have a serious problem with this kid and should deal with it themselves, rather than try to offload their problem to the umpires.

Years ago I was working a 13/14 game and tossed the SS for unsporting behavior. The manager came up to me after the inning and thanked me for tossing him. My first thought was why did I have to take care of his problem.

[PeteBooth]

Years ago I was working a 13/14 game and tossed the SS for unsporting behavior. The manager came up to me after the inning and thanked me for tossing him. My first thought was why did I have to take care of his problem.

Michael you hit the nail on the head and this type of scenario probably deserves it's own thread altogether but is definitely on most umpires pet peeves list.

From my experience, the coach is sometimes reluctant to deal with the parents (cannot blame them) and wants to get rid of the kid or cut down playing time but he is tired of dealing with the father/ mother etc.

if the kid gets tossed enough then the coach has some "amunition" in which to get rid of the kid or cut down playing time and have a good reason to convey to the parent without getting into a large altercation.

Not condoning it but I have seen it happen.

Pete Booth

[LMSANS]

I was working a 13u game last month. I called a batter out on a knee high strike. He looked at me but didn't say anything. It was the third out so I went to stand on the baseline like normal. I start hearing a heated discussion behind me. "you're out of the game" "you can just sit there until we go home" "when we get home, you can turn in your uniform" were some of the things I overheard. It seems the kid said something about me, the coach corrected him and then he lashed out at the coach.

As the inning get started, the coach comes out and says "we'll finish with 9 and take an out for his spot in the lineup. There is no way I'm going to let some 13 yo talk to me like that." Then he says "the shame of it is, I was (his emphasis) friends with his parents."

At the end of the game, I shook that coaches hand and told him I respected him for being able to discipline his team.

[prumpire]

They shouldnt even be wearing metal cleats, yet alone use them to hurt members of the opposing team!!!

[jnazz]

Up here in canada with ORB........ first play --- out at second on the force and out at first on the interference which was with obvious intent to break up the double play. I also dump his ass. second play --- I can't call him out unless he alters his natural progression. If there's contact, then of course. Or if he does the stop and wait for the ball if front of the fielder thing. You could also call him out if he runs out of the direct line to third in order to interfere. But in your example, if sounds like he just aggressively bolted to third with the SS in the way and the SS moved. third play ---- call him out for the interference on F5 and possibly toss him (depending on your judgement of the push).

[markdewdney]

Gone, so gone. That's an instinct.

However, I've vapor-locked on that before (haven't we all?)

[nolanadair]

I have a couple of things on a play like this.

First of all I would have interference and the runner heading to first would be out because of the malicious slide of R1 into 2nd base.

Also, only Juniors division and higher can players wear metal cleats (I assume that if the slide left the fielders arm bleeding, the player must be wearing metal cleats). Also if I ever found a player wearing metal cleats, I might toss out the manager. The reason i might do this is because at the plate meeting I would have asked the manager if his players were properly equipped. If he said yes (and they all should), then he lied at the plate meeting and he is held fully responsible for his player cleats. I would not toss the player unless the cleats were used in a harmful way.

Getting back to the point, I would eject the runner sliding into second base. The way you described it, he clearly meant to break up the double play by sliding into the fielder and not the bag.

Very interesting situation you posted catoblue.

Also, if you knew the umpires that were umpiring the game I might do the following.

After the game I would politely ask them about both of the situations you mentioned in your first post. Ask them what they saw and if they saw something that resembled interference and if they did ask them why they did not call it.

[catoblue]

I have a couple of things on a play like this.

First of all I would have interference and the runner heading to first would be out because of the malicious slide of R1 into 2nd base.

I wouldn't be able to call an out - he slid so that he could reach the base and LL has no MC rule - but I would have an EJ for unsportsman-like.

"Coach, number XX is done for the day, we need a sub on 2nd"

Also, only Juniors division and higher can players wear metal cleats (I assume that if the slide left the fielders arm bleeding, the player must be wearing metal cleats). Also if I ever found a player wearing metal cleats, I might toss out the manager. The reason i might do this is because at the plate meeting I would have asked the manager if his players were properly equipped. If he said yes (and they all should), then he lied at the plate meeting and he is held fully responsible for his player cleats. I would not toss the player unless the cleats were used in a harmful way.

Actually, they were molded plastic cleats, he simply slid/kicked out into F4 hard enough that the plastic cleats broke the skin on F4's arm.

Getting back to the point, I would eject the runner sliding into second base. The way you described it, he clearly meant to break up the double play by sliding into the fielder and not the bag.

I would have tossed him for sure for unsportsmanlike, but his slide was "at the bag" and at F4 at the same time, ending up with his butt on the bag and his feet in the air and F4 on the ground.

Very interesting situation you posted catoblue.

Also, if you knew the umpires that were umpiring the game I might do the following.

After the game I would politely ask them about both of the situations you mentioned in your first post. Ask them what they saw and if they saw something that resembled interference and if they did ask them why they did not call it.

I don't know the umpires (travel league), but they were of the "safe/out, ball/strike and nothing more" variety, wearing street clothes. What I did was talk to the umpire that should have made the call (BU) between innings, mentioned that he had a possible EJ on the high-cleats slide, and asked him to please talk to the kid's coach because it's a safety issue.

I didn't even bother trying to discuss interference, as that would have gone right over his head -whoosh!