Contact at the plate - video

[Rich Ives]

So the catcher's blocking access to the plate and y'all are trying to find a way to blame the runner for something? Do I have this right?

[zm1283]

In FED, this is either OBS or a train wreck. I don't see how you could get interference on the runner or malicious contact. What is illegal about his slide? I don't see a rolling cross-body block either.

With that said, I really don't like FED's rule about a fielder having to possess the ball before they can block a base. The NCAA/OBR rule is much easier to enforce and makes much more sense.

[mstaylor]

Guys, making a play on the runner, does require he have the ball. He cannot attempt to put a runner without it. In this play he is making a play on the ball so he can then make a play on the runner. Since it is a thrown ball then interference must be intentional. He could reach for the ball to knock it loose, if the fielder actually had it, but that didn't happen. He could simply roll him, try to take his knees out or something else that could rise to MC. I do not see the runner altering his path in the least to get to the plate. He does slide a little late but until the throw went offline he didn't need to slide. I did see the catcher come from in front of the plate to either in the baseline or partially foul. Although he could be potentionally injured, it was not by illegal action by the baserunner.

I agree that we don't get a good picture because we are seeing from 3BLX which is why the PU was on the 1BLX.

[Umpete]

This is why I think it is a cross-body slide. The runner takes out the catcher's left foot, and his head/shoulders are to the catcher's right side. The catcher goes over the center (more or less) of the runner. I can't tell for sure, but I did not think the catcher was "up the line." I have him with his right foot at the plate. Not saying I'm right, just what I see.

[Replacematt]

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.

No, the "or" shows the second thing that an illegal slide can do for it to be interference.

There has to be 1. an illegal slide, AND 2. illegal contact OR illegal alteration.

[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.

No, the "or" shows the second thing that an illegal slide can do for it to be interference.

There has to be 1. an illegal slide, AND 2. illegal contact OR illegal alteration.

Ok, so you are telling me that as long as you use a "legal" slide (Using FED rules), you can intentionally take out any player in the act of making a play, and it is legal?

So how would you rule this play: No Outs , Batter hits the ball into LF. BR attempts to advance to 3rd, F5 is standing at 3B, preparing to catch a throw from F9 who is attempting to retire the BR at 3rd. The BR notices there is no defensive player backing up the play, so the BR slides into the legs of F5, causing F5 to fall to the ground just before receiving the throw, allowing the BR to score.

[gobama84]

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.

Deleted my post.....

[UmpJM]

Fittske,

...

Ok, so you are telling me that as long as you use a "legal" slide (Using FED rules), you can intentionally take out any player in the act of making a play, and it is legal?

Yes.

So how would you rule this play: No Outs , Batter hits the ball into LF. BR attempts to advance to 3rd, F5 is standing at 3B, preparing to catch a throw from F9 who is attempting to retire the BR at 3rd. The BR notices there is no defensive player backing up the play, so the BR slides into the legs of F5, causing F5 to fall to the ground just before receiving the throw, allowing the BR to score.

Assuming the slide is legal in ALL respects, I've got nothing but a run scored.

JM

[Replacematt]

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.

No, the "or" shows the second thing that an illegal slide can do for it to be interference.

There has to be 1. an illegal slide, AND 2. illegal contact OR illegal alteration.

Ok, so you are telling me that as long as you use a "legal" slide (Using FED rules), you can intentionally take out any player in the act of making a play, and it is legal?

So how would you rule this play: No Outs , Batter hits the ball into LF. BR attempts to advance to 3rd, F5 is standing at 3B, preparing to catch a throw from F9 who is attempting to retire the BR at 3rd. The BR notices there is no defensive player backing up the play, so the BR slides into the legs of F5, causing F5 to fall to the ground just before receiving the throw, allowing the BR to score.

Yep.

[mstaylor]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

[Fittske24]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

[Rich Ives]

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.

No, the "or" shows the second thing that an illegal slide can do for it to be interference.

There has to be 1. an illegal slide, AND 2. illegal contact OR illegal alteration.

Ok, so you are telling me that as long as you use a "legal" slide (Using FED rules), you can intentionally take out any player in the act of making a play, and it is legal?

So how would you rule this play: No Outs , Batter hits the ball into LF. BR attempts to advance to 3rd, F5 is standing at 3B, preparing to catch a throw from F9 who is attempting to retire the BR at 3rd. The BR notices there is no defensive player backing up the play, so the BR slides into the legs of F5, causing F5 to fall to the ground just before receiving the throw, allowing the BR to score.

So just where should he slide - the ball's on the way and the play's being made on him.

STUFF HAPPENS! This is one of them.

[noumpere]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

How can you tell the difference if the fielder is on the bag and the runner slides at the bag with meeting all the other aspects of a legal slide?

[Fittske24]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

How can you tell the difference if the fielder is on the bag and the runner slides at the bag with meeting all the other aspects of a legal slide?

That's what being a great umpire is all about. I would agree that it is difficult to judge intent, but there are times when you can tell a player is "attempting" to gain an advantage. If this was an OBR or an NCAA situation I would say I've got nothing....play on, but FED wants players to avoid contact when possible. If I see a player, who is using a slide, even if it is a legal slide in terms of slide mechanics, purposely take a player out when he could have avoided or slid away from contact I'm going to have to make a call.

Here is another situation I'm curious how you guys would rule:

Bases loaded 1 out. Infield playing in. Batter hits a ground ball to F4. F4 fires to F2 to retire R3 at the plate. F2 retires R3 and attempts to retire the BR at 1st base for a double play. Before releasing the throw, R3, using a legal slide, intentianly makes contact with the catchers feet and the ball sails into right field. What's your call?

[UmpJM]

Fittske,

E2. No rule was violated.

JM

[scrounge]

I just saw a youtube video the other day in a D1 NCAA game with this exact situation. Interference on the runner, double play called. And if the slide is truly intentional in my judgment, I'm calling the exact same thing.

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

How can you tell the difference if the fielder is on the bag and the runner slides at the bag with meeting all the other aspects of a legal slide?

That's what being a great umpire is all about. I would agree that it is difficult to judge intent, but there are times when you can tell a player is "attempting" to gain an advantage. If this was an <acronym title='Official Baseball Rules'>OBR</acronym> or an NCAA situation I would say I've got nothing....play on, but <acronym title='Federation Rules (High School)'>FED</acronym> wants players to avoid contact when possible. If I see a player, who is using a slide, even if it is a legal slide in terms of slide mechanics, purposely take a player out when he could have avoided or slid away from contact I'm going to have to make a call.

Here is another situation I'm curious how you guys would rule:

Bases loaded 1 out. Infield playing in. Batter hits a ground ball to <acronym title='Second baseman'>F4</acronym>. <acronym title='Second baseman'>F4</acronym> fires to <acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym> to retire <acronym title='Base runner at 3B '>R3</acronym> at the plate. <acronym title='Catcher'>F2</acronym> retires <acronym title='Base runner at 3B '>R3</acronym> and attempts to retire the <acronym title='Batter-runner'>BR </acronym>at 1st base for a double play. Before releasing the throw, <acronym title='Base runner at 3B '>R3</acronym>, using a legal slide, intentianly makes contact with the catchers feet and the ball sails into right field. What's your call?

[UmpJM]

Scrounge,

Could you post a link to the video. I doubt the slide was legal.

JM

[scrounge]

youtube-blocked during the day, but I'll try and dig it up tonight. It was a run of the mill slide, but obviously intentional as F2 already in his throwing motion to first.

Scrounge,

Could you post a link to the video. I doubt the slide was legal.

JM

[JaxRolo]

I've only been working HS ball for 2 years but every clinic I have attended they say that as long as it is a legal slide then it's nothing.

Why penalize a runner for something legal?

[zm1283]

Scrounge,

Could you post a link to the video. I doubt the slide was legal.

JM

I have seen the video too. R3 slides on the ground feet first, but just as F2 clears the plate and starts to throw to first, R3 sticks a leg out and sort of hooks F2's foot as he's trying to throw. The ball goes into right field and INT is called.

[UmpJM]

zm,

Well, that's not a legal slide, so interference is the proper call.

JM

[MidAmUmp]

Scrounge,

Could you post a link to the video. I doubt the slide was legal.

JM

I have seen the video too. R3 slides on the ground feet first, but just as F2 clears the plate and starts to throw to first, R3 sticks a leg out and sort of hooks F2's foot as he's trying to throw. The ball goes into right field and INT is called.

I think this is the video Zac is talking about...

[mstaylor]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

It's your wording that is tough. Intentionally sliding into a fielder is not illegal. Sliding illegally is, as well as going after the fielder without trying to get to the bag.

[mstaylor]

Scrounge,

Could you post a link to the video. I doubt the slide was legal.

JM

I have seen the video too. R3 slides on the ground feet first, but just as F2 clears the plate and starts to throw to first, R3 sticks a leg out and sort of hooks F2's foot as he's trying to throw. The ball goes into right field and INT is called.

That is a FPSR violation. Legwhipping, not sliding at the base or oversliding and contacting on the backside are all illegal slides in a force play situation.

[Replacematt]

In your modified play at third, if he is sliding at the base then certainly it is legal. If he is sliding just to take the fielder out then it is certainly illegal.

And that's precisely my point. I don't care what kind of slide the runner uses, if it is used to intentionally take out a fielder, the action of the runner is illegal.

That's not what he said.

Intentionally taking out a fielder is not illegal, unless the runner slides away from a base to do it.