Contact at the plate - video

[plateumpire29]

From the angle and distance, it's hard to tell if the slide is clean. To me , the catcher appeared to move into the runners baseline to field the throw. The runner and baseball arrived at the same time. If I think I've got a clean slide, I've got nothing. My positionining would have been third base extended at roughly a 30 Degree angle toward first base to the third base line. This would have given me a pretty decent look at the slide.If i've got an illegal slide and MC, the call must be made with good timing and it must be sold, as the plate guy in this video did.

[Welpe]

I have obstruction in FED. I learned to umpire under OBR so I am not a fan of the FED obstruction rule but they do not leave much if any wiggle room. They want it called this way and barring an overriding local interpretation, I see no other option.

[mstaylor]

Exactly what I have been trying to say Welpe.

[BT_Blue]

Exactly what I have been trying to say Welpe.

Ditto. Its like the conversation in the FED section about the pitcher falling down and not delivering the ball with no one on. The FED book is quite clear on both of these situations and choosing not to call them means more pain, maybe for you, but DEFINITELY for the poor schmucks that have to follow you on the next game that DO call it.

[ump81]

Guys, I think we must remember this is HS baseball, no rule book is more safety conscious and concerned for player safety, that being the case I dont think we can ignore this and call it a trainwreck, incidential contact or put it on the catcher and say obstruction. Watching this the best comment so far is that the player did not slide with a foot and buttock on the ground and he clearly aimed at the catcher. It is a cross body block type slide resulting in injury, even though he did go low the slide was illegal and really those of you who say blame the catcher are very misguided and I hope after the no-call, and an ACL reconstruction and lower leg bolts to repair his shattered leg bones you have a very good lawyer! Think of the potential liability in negligence in not ruling a cross body block an illegal slide. Great courageous call by the ump and I'm sorry to say any HS trained ump who says nothing there is the opposite of courageous. Really think long and hard about all the clinics and lectures about safety, concussions and eliminating violent collisions, can you say nothing happened here? The catcher was just going for the ball in the act of trying to catch an errant throw and is protected here, if you say obstruction on him again its court time and a field day for lawyers. I am one of our state clinicians and we had an hour lecture on plate collisions and protecting players from concussion type injuries due to illegal contact, so I can say with certainty that at the state level this ump has 100% backing for a difficult call but the absolutely correct call considering player safety first! Don't come away from this video thinking no call is warranted here and those who put it out for all to read that the catcher was at fault or that its just a train wreck, might just be named in the law suit as dispensing dangerous training information! its not just my opinion you are wrong its clearly a call requiring action and was correct on every front. There is no room for opinion and backtracking when malicious contact is involved its a black and white type call.

[mstaylor]

Guys, I think we must remember this is HS baseball, no rule book is more safety conscious and concerned for player safety, that being the case I dont think we can ignore this and call it a trainwreck, incidential contact or put it on the catcher and say obstruction. Watching this the best comment so far is that the player did not slide with a foot and buttock on the ground and he clearly aimed at the catcher. It is a cross body block type slide resulting in injury, even though he did go low the slide was illegal and really those of you who say blame the catcher are very misguided and I hope after the no-call, and an ACL reconstruction and lower leg bolts to repair his shattered leg bones you have a very good lawyer! Think of the potential liability in negligence in not ruling a cross body block an illegal slide. Great courageous call by the ump and I'm sorry to say any HS trained ump who says nothing there is the opposite of courageous. Really think long and hard about all the clinics and lectures about safety, concussions and eliminating violent collisions, can you say nothing happened here? The catcher was just going for the ball in the act of trying to catch an errant throw and is protected here, if you say obstruction on him again its court time and a field day for lawyers. I am one of our state clinicians and we had an hour lecture on plate collisions and protecting players from concussion type injuries due to illegal contact, so I can say with certainty that at the state level this ump has 100% backing for a difficult call but the absolutely correct call considering player safety first! Don't come away from this video thinking no call is warranted here and those who put it out for all to read that the catcher was at fault or that its just a train wreck, might just be named in the law suit as dispensing dangerous training information! its not just my opinion you are wrong its clearly a call requiring action and was correct on every front. There is no room for opinion and backtracking when malicious contact is involved its a black and white type call.

I absolutely agree that FED is all about safety. From the camera angles I have seen I did not have a cross body block. I also agree that a cross body block is absolutely illegal and should be ejected for it. I saw a late slide but legal. I really wish there was another angle from the other side, which is what the umpire saw.

If I am correct in the slide being legal then it absolutely obstruction, FED does not offer protection for fielding the ball. If it is a crossbody block as you say then out and ejected is absolutely the right call. Trainwreck is nowhere in the equation.

All that said, as I noted in an earlier thread, if the slide is legal, the catcher obstructed but made it safely to home so no obstruction. I will absolutely concede that passing on either the obstruction or MC violation is completely wrong for HS.

[yawetag]

I hope after the no-call, and an ACL reconstruction and lower leg bolts to repair his shattered leg bones you have a very good lawyer! Think of the potential liability in negligence in not ruling a cross body block an illegal slide. ... if you say obstruction on him again its court time and a field day for lawyers.

IANAL, but a lawyer would have a hard time showing you're liable for an injury if you don't call it correctly. Your actions after the incident has no bearing on the liability of the incident.

[Replacematt]

The catcher was just going for the ball in the act of trying to catch an errant throw and is protected here,

You are dead wrong here.

[johnnyg08]

I hope after the no-call, and an ACL reconstruction and lower leg bolts to repair his shattered leg bones you have a very good lawyer! Think of the potential liability in negligence in not ruling a cross body block an illegal slide. ... if you say obstruction on him again its court time and a field day for lawyers.

IANAL, but a lawyer would have a hard time showing you're liable for an injury if you don't call it correctly. Your actions after the incident has no bearing on the liability of the incident.

Agree, let's say you call it correctly...does that take back the shredded ACL?

[Guest]

I don't care what rule set you are working under - player injury, while unfortunate, does not necessitate penalty to the offender.

Also, there is no way ruling obstruction would result in the umpire being liable in a court of law.

[Fittske24]

Ok, let me interject another point of thought, Keeping the safety rules of FED in mind.....What if the runner uses a slide to intentionally sweep the legs out from under the catcher who is waiting on a throw in an attempt to either (1) dislodge the ball, or (2) keep the catcher from receiving the throw? Would this justify the ruling made by the umpire in this video?

In screen shot #1

This shows where home plate is located. Catcher is in front of the plate watching the play develop.

In screen shot #2

You see the catcher has now moved to his left, blocking access to the plate. This now brings in the possibility of obstruction. Notice that at the time of the collision, the catcher's feet have not moved any more to his left or right(See screen shot #3). The runner from 3rd, has not reached the dirt circle.

In screen shot #3

The catcher is now in the act of making a play. The catcher does not have the ball, and is in jepordy of obstruction, but, the runner appears to intentionally slide in a manner that would "take out" the catcher at the legs. In my judgment the runner has time to alter his path to avoid the collision. If he alters his path and the catcher is standing there without the ball, I would be inclined to rule obstruction. Since the runner uses his slide to attempt to alter the play, I have interference and possibly an EJ.

FED: 8-4-2b

Any Runner is out when he: does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play....

[Replacematt]

Your question hinges on if it was an illegal slide or if there was intent to injure.

[Fittske24]

Your question hinges on if it was an illegal slide or if there was intent to injure.

Yes, there is the possibility of an illegal slide but it is hard to say if that's the case due to the quality of the video.. There is, however the possibility of using a legal slide to interfere withe the catcher, who is in the act of making a play by taking out the catcher by under cutting his legs. What makes this play so interesting, is that the runner went "low" and did not initiate contact above the waist. So at this point you are determining the runners intent to initiate contact and take out the catcher all be it using a "legal" slide. If you as the plate umpire feel that the runner had ample space and oppertunity to alter his path to avoid contact but chooses to initiate contact, the FED slide safety rules support the call of interference here.

[Replacematt]

Your question hinges on if it was an illegal slide or if there was intent to injure.

Yes, there is the possibility of an illegal slide but it is hard to say if that's the case due to the quality of the video.. There is, however the possibility of using a legal slide to interfere withe the catcher, who is in the act of making a play, by taking out the catcher by under cutting his legs. What makes this play so interesting, is that the runner went "low" and did not initiate contact above the waist. So at this point you are determining the runners intent to initiate contact and take out the catcher all be it using a "legal" slide. If you as the plate umpire feel that the runner had ample space and oppertunity to alter his path to avoid contact but chooses to initiate contact, the FED slide safety rules support the call of interference here.

No, they don't.

[Fittske24]

No, they don't.

Ok, can you please elaborate just a tad bit more why you think they don't?

[Replacematt]

No, they don't.

Ok, can you please elaborate just a tad bit more why you think they don't?

Simple. Nothing substantiates a call of interference on a legal slide. Do you have a rule cite where a legal slide is interference?

[scrounge]

Why not? As I read 8-4-2c, the rules clearly require the runner to avoid contact. Runner is out if he doesn't and ball is live unless interference is called, which means that interference is clearly allowed as an option if judged to be so.

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

....

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him; or

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.

Your question hinges on if it was an illegal slide or if there was intent to injure.

Yes, there is the possibility of an illegal slide but it is hard to say if that's the case due to the quality of the video.. There is, however the possibility of using a legal slide to interfere withe the catcher, who is in the act of making a play, by taking out the catcher by under cutting his legs. What makes this play so interesting, is that the runner went "low" and did not initiate contact above the waist. So at this point you are determining the runners intent to initiate contact and take out the catcher all be it using a "legal" slide. If you as the plate umpire feel that the runner had ample space and oppertunity to alter his path to avoid contact but chooses to initiate contact, the <acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'>FED</acronym> slide safety rules support the call of interference here.

No, they don't.

[Replacematt]

Why not? As I read 8-4-2c, the rules clearly require the runner to avoid contact. Runner is out if he doesn't and ball is live unless interference is called, which means that interference is clearly allowed as an option if judged to be so.

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

....

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him; or

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.

This is not the relevant rule, but...

There is no absolute requirement to avoid a fielder. Note that that rule states "legally attempt." That is all that is required--a legal slide, a change of direction away from the fielder, etc.

Further note, that even illegal contact occurs under this rule, it is not the rule by which interference is called (hence why this one is not the relevant one.)

[scrounge]

It doesn't completely answer it, but in combination with the definition of legal slide and interference, I think it does. If the umpire judges the runner to not legally avoid contact, you've got at least an 8-4-2c as above. If he judges the runner to slide directly at the fielder in an attempt to interfere with the initial play, you've got the definition of interference. The slide may meet the one leg/one buttock portion of the legal definition, but if it's directed at the player for the purpose of breaking up a play and not at the base, that could easily be judged interference. Finally, if the umpire judged the slide as targeting the fielder in a malicious manner, I can see how he judged malicious contact.

Why not? As I read 8-4-2c, the rules clearly require the runner to avoid contact. Runner is out if he doesn't and ball is live unless interference is called, which means that interference is clearly allowed as an option if judged to be so.

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

....

c. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him; or

PENALTY: The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.

This is not the relevant rule, but...

There is no absolute requirement to avoid a fielder. Note that that rule states "legally attempt." That is all that is required--a legal slide, a change of direction away from the fielder, etc.

Further note, that even illegal contact occurs under this rule, it is not the rule by which interference is called (hence why this one is not the relevant one.)

[Replacematt]

It doesn't completely answer it, but in combination with the definition of legal slide and interference, I think it does. If the umpire judges the runner to not legally avoid contact, you've got at least an 8-4-2c as above. If he judges the runner to slide directly at the fielder in an attempt to interfere with the initial play, you've got the definition of interference. The slide may meet the one leg/one buttock portion of the legal definition, but if it's directed at the player for the purpose of breaking up a play and not at the base, that could easily be judged interference. Finally, if the umpire judged the slide as targeting the fielder in a malicious manner, I can see how he judged malicious contact.

There is no difference between that quote and this one:

Your question hinges on if it was an illegal slide or if there was intent to injure.

The thing is, though, is that you can have a legal slide directly at a fielder, depending on his position relative to the base.

In the OP, if one were to use Fittske's screencaps, I cannot see justifying a call of illegal slide based on it going directly at a fielder--he was between the runner and the plate. Just because his legs were apart doesn't require the runner to be a croquet ball.

[Fittske24]

Simple. Nothing substantiates a call of interference on a legal slide. Do you have a rule cite where a legal slide is interference?

FED: 8-4-2b

Any Runner is out when he: does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play....

PENALTY: The runner is out. Intereference is called and the ball is dead immediatly.

The "or" implies that the slide does not have to be "illegal" for there to be interference. If the runner illegally alters the action of the fielder who is in the act of making a play, in this case taking out his legs before the ball arrives, the runner can be guilty of interference even if the slide is legal.

[noumpere]

The thing is, though, is that you can have a legal slide directly at a fielder, depending on his position relative to the base.

In the OP, if one were to use Fittske's screencaps, I cannot see justifying a call of illegal slide based on it going directly at a fielder--he was between the runner and the plate. Just because his legs were apart doesn't require the runner to be a croquet ball.

FWIW I generally agree with this and cases 2-32.1and 8.4.2 SIT A seem to infer that a legal slide meets the legally attempts to avoid criteria in the rule. As we often teach it the runner has three choices get down go around or give up. Plus if I look at the screen pictures posted above it doesnt look to me as though the fielder has denied complete access to the base to the runner. So in that case its not obstruction either.

Of course, if the umpire had the slide as illegal for some other reason then he would of been correct.

[UmpJM]

Fittske,

I'm with Matt on this one.

A runner is ALLOWED to take out a fielder with a LEGAL slide - even under FED.

To be "...in the immediate act of making a play...", the fielder must be in possession of the ball - so it doesn't apply to this play.

As to whether or not this particular slide was legal, I'm not sure. From the video, it certainly appears that he did NOT have a leg/buttock on the ground at the time of the collision with the catcher. However, is that because the catcher moved into his path (in his futile attempt to glove the errant throw) so late that he didn't have an opportunity to react, or because he was trying to illegally take out the catcher? Hard to say from the video. And, I'm not sure it matters, but I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner in this Sitch.

JM

[Fittske24]

Fittske,

I'm with Matt on this one.

A runner is ALLOWED to take out a fielder with a LEGAL slide - even under FED.

To be "...in the immediate act of making a play...", the fielder must be in possession of the ball - so it doesn't apply to this play.

As to whether or not this particular slide was legal, I'm not sure. From the video, it certainly appears that he did NOT have a leg/buttock on the ground at the time of the collision with the catcher. However, is that because the catcher moved into his path (in his futile attempt to glove the errant throw) so late that he didn't have an opportunity to react, or because he was trying to illegally take out the catcher? Hard to say from the video. And, I'm not sure it matters, but I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner in this Sitch.

JM

Incorrect. The fielder does not have to have possession of the ball in order to be in the act of making a play. Any fielder fielding a thrown ball with the intent of retiring a runner is considered in the act of making a play.

In FED you can not purposely take out a runner in the act of making a play. If there is contact, the contact must be incidental or as a result of a misplay by the fielder.

[Umpete]

Illegal cross-body slide? Anybody?