NCAA slide rule situation

[zm1283]

Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYejsgJCmk&feature=related

This was obviously a few years ago. Has the FPSR changed in NCAA in recent years? I haven't been at this long enough to know either way. F1 sliding past second base is not illegal now, but was it before? The announcers are basically claiming that the FED slide rule was in effect at this time and F1 should be out for interference. (I know, announcers are clueless)

Also, do you have interference for F1 grabbing at the backside of the pivot man on the double play? I didn't think he touched him at first, but they eventually showed an angle and he did make slight contact.

[noumpere]

A couple of years ago, the "slide past the base" part of the rule was changed. It's not relevant in this play under either the old or the new rule, or under FED because the runner did not slide past the base and then make contact with F4.

What is relevant, and was missed, was the arm swipe and contact.

[Rich Ives]

Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYejsgJCmk&feature=related

This was obviously a few years ago. Has the FPSR changed in NCAA in recent years? I haven't been at this long enough to know either way. F1 sliding past second base is not illegal now, but was it before? The announcers are basically claiming that the FED slide rule was in effect at this time and F1 should be out for interference. (I know, announcers are clueless)

Also, do you have interference for F1 grabbing at the backside of the pivot man on the double play? I didn't think he touched him at first, but they eventually showed an angle and he did make slight contact.

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

[Mr Umpire]

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

Me neither. It looked like a legal slide and there was contact. Contact was made but I believe it was legal contact.

[calablue]

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

According to the 2009-10 NCAA rule book.... rule 8-4-c-1 clearly states that it is interference if "the runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder ( with or without contact)." According to the same book it was still legal if contact occurred in the base line extended and also if it occurred on a popup slide.

[Rich Ives]

According to the 2009-10 NCAA rule book.... rule 8-4-c-1 clearly states that it is interference if "the runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder ( with or without contact)." According to the same book it was still legal if contact occurred in the base line extended and also if it occurred on a popup slide.

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

[zm1283]

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

Agreed and I don't think the contact altered the play either.

[kwiggie]

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

Agreed as well, the only thing that this clip proved is that announcers shouldn't be explaning the rules!

[mazzamouth]

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

Not true in NCAA, you can make contact on a pop up slide as long as you don't intentionally interfere..

NCAA rule 8- 4

Force-Play-Slide Rule

SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety

of all players. This is a safety and an interference rule. Whether the defense

could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of

this rule. This rule pertains to a force-play situation at any base, regardless

of the number of outs.

a. On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the

base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for

the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline

extended (see diagram).

Exception—A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the

runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be

called.

(1) “On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one

leg and buttock on the ground before the base.

(2) “Directly into a base” means the runner’s entire body (feet, legs,

trunk and arms) must stay in a straight line between the bases.

b. Contact with a fielder is legal and interference shall not be called if

the runner makes a legal slide directly to the base and in the baseline

extended (see diagram).

A.R.—If contact occurs on top of the base as a result of a “pop-up” slide, this contact

is legal.

hope that helps..

[mazzamouth]

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

which is ok..

[dumbdumb]

This is from 2005 and the runner is the pitcher sliding into 2nd base. If we are so naive as to think these guys don't know how to slide and try to interfere and get away with it, we are all in the wrong game. I did not say his slide is legal or illegal, I just said if there is an intentional way to reach out and hit or do anything to "try" and interfere, they will do it. (Seems like in another sport called basketball, you try to "touch" the guy in the back from behind just to try and throw him off and you know a lot of times it is "intentional". It may be called "incidental" sometimes or it may not, based upon judgment, but many times you know it was "intentional"). There is no doubt IMHO this was "intentional" that he reached out with his hand and across to make contact, and not part his normal slide with hands straight in front, but whether it met all the criteria for interference or not is in the judgment of the umpire, up to and including whether "he thought" it (the hand touching) was intentional or just part of a regular slide, based upon the slide itself. Obviously he thought the positioning of the hand was just part of the normal slide and not a reach to "intentionally" interfere. That's just IMHO, and of course opinions are like *******. . . as the old saying goes, and that's also why he is actually working that game and I am just here typing about it, and being an armchair quarterback after seeing the replay.

Oh yes, that 3rd base umpire was AJ Lostaglio who just finished working the 2010 CWS again.

[Rich Ives]

This is from 2005 and the runner is the pitcher sliding into 2nd base. If we are so naive as to think these guys don't know how to slide and try to interfere and get away with it, we are all in the wrong game. I did not say his slide is legal or illegal, I just said if there is an intentional way to reach out and hit or do anything to "try" and interfere, they will do it. (Seems like in another sport called basketball, you try to "touch" the guy in the back from behind just to try and throw him off and you know a lot of times it is "intentional". It may be called "incidental" sometimes or it may not, based upon judgment, but many times you know it was "intentional"). There is no doubt IMHO this was "intentional" that he reached out with his hand and across to make contact, and not part his normal slide with hands straight in front, but whether it met all the criteria for interference or not is in the judgment of the umpire, up to and including whether "he thought" it (the hand touching) was intentional or just part of a regular slide, based upon the slide itself. Obviously he thought the positioning of the hand was just part of the normal slide and not a reach to "intentionally" interfere. That's just IMHO, and of course opinions are like *******. . . as the old saying goes, and that's also why he is actually working that game and I am just here typing about it, and being an armchair quarterback after seeing the replay.

Oh yes, that 3rd base umpire was AJ Lostaglio who just finished working the 2010 CWS again.

Attempted interference isn't interference.

Actual interference is interference.

To be interference it has to alter the play.

It didn't.

Therefore it wasn't.

[calablue]

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

my post was only in reference to your statement that contact is needed for the interference to be made.

[noumpere]

Attempted interference isn't interference.

Actual interference is interference.

To be interference it has to alter the play.

It didn't.

Therefore it wasn't.

The play was shown at the NCAA clinic the following year. It was emphasized that the play should have been called interference.

[Rich Ives]

The play was shown at the NCAA clinic the following year. It was emphasized that the play should have been called interference.

Why?

[mazzamouth]

The play was shown at the NCAA clinic the following year. It was emphasized that the play should have been called interference.

I will agree INT should have been called, he made an attempt to interfere witht he play..

the 2nd base umpire is Mike Collins.. a very good umpire...was the only guy in the US to work DI football, basketball, and baseball all at the same time.. that's hard work.

[Rich Ives]

I will agree INT should have been called, he made an attempt to interfere witht he play..

the 2nd base umpire is Mike Collins.. a very good umpire...was the only guy in the US to work DI football, basketball, and baseball all at the same time.. that's hard work.

WHY?

The FED rule says it's interference IF the runner slides beyond the base THEN contacts the fielder or alters the play.

The NCAA rule now allows contact beyond the base. It may not have then.

The fielder was not contacted beyond the base.

The play was not altered.

Where is the interference?

[noumpere]

The replay that begins about 1:26 (from along the first base line) shows the shortstop's play being altered. There's a slight difference in the landing and maybe a slight double-clutch.

That's enough (with the benefit of the replay, etc.) to get the interference in NCAA ball.

Note: I don't blame the umpires for missing it during live action.

[mazzamouth]

WHY?

The FED rule says it's interference IF the runner slides beyond the base THEN contacts the fielder or alters the play.

The NCAA rule now allows contact beyond the base. It may not have then.

The fielder was not contacted beyond the base.

The play was not altered.

Where is the interference?

he reached up with his right hand and tried to grab the SS...

[Rich Ives]

he reached up with his right hand and tried to grab the ss...

Did he succeed? Did it alter the play?

[Umpire in Chief]

That is a really tough play to call in real time. I saw what Mazz was talking about. But seriously doubt I'm catching that in real time.

IF I were to catch this I'd probably call the FPSR. He is making an attempt to interfere, the benefit of the doubt has to turn to the defense in this case.

[dumbdumb]

The way this play ended up, based on what happened or did not happen, would it be easier to see whether there was interference or not from B or C. Just asking and not trying to start a B or C debate. You never actually know beforehand what will happen.

[mazzamouth]

I dont think either B or C will give you a good look.. I do like B better as I'm on that side of the base, looking back into 2nd.

[mazzamouth]

Did he succeed? Did it alter the play?

how much does he need to alter, a lot, a little, just a bit, a little bit more?....It does not have to be a big alteration, just enough, and if the umpire feels he did.. well you have INT.. no in this OP play the U2 did not feel he had INT on the play. But like I said IMO I have INT.. your opinion is Different. I don't really think either of us is wrong, just different.

[Rich Ives]

how much does he need to alter, a lot, a little, just a bit, a little bit more?....It does not have to be a big alteration, just enough, and if the umpire feels he did.. well you have INT.. no in this OP play the U2 did not feel he had INT on the play. But like I said IMO I have INT.. your opinion is Different. I don't really think either of us is wrong, just different.

I"d agree that any alteration is INT.

Our difference is that I didn't see any alteration at all.