Force Play Slide Rule-Fed

[bam]

2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)

I hope I didn't ramble too much, but I think based on what you describe, you have a whole lot of nothing. If there's no play, F2 needs to be off of the plate. (not illegal, just poor technique) It is simply poor technique for a catcher no matter the level.

So on this play (2.32.2 situation C), are you calling the runner out at home in addition to the BR?

[johnnyg08]

If a kid slides past the plate and contacts the catcher when no play is being attempted at home, and it's not MC, and I call that runner out...

 

I would be considered a pretty bad "by-the-book" umpire lacking common sense.  Just sayin'.

 

I'd have a tough time under some hypotheticals getting an out on that too.

 

I agree, so what's the penalty for that?

[Jocko]

5 yards and loss of posession

[Replacematt]

 

2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)

I hope I didn't ramble too much, but I think based on what you describe, you have a whole lot of nothing. If there's no play, F2 needs to be off of the plate. (not illegal, just poor technique) It is simply poor technique for a catcher no matter the level.

So on this play (2.32.2 situation C), are you calling the runner out at home in addition to the BR?

 

I think per rule, you have to, unless someone can find something to the contrary.

If a kid slides past the plate and contacts the catcher when no play is being attempted at home, and it's not MC, and I call that runner out...

 

I would be considered a pretty bad "by-the-book" umpire lacking common sense.  Just sayin'.

 

I'd have a tough time under some hypotheticals getting an out on that too.

 

If there's no play being attempted at home, then FPSR doesn't apply.

[johnnyg08]

Matt writes:  If there's no play being attempted at home, then FPSR doesn't apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agree, but a slide can still be illegal right?

[bam]

I'm reading 151 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game and this Play is in the book.  Childress say call both out, regardless if F3 has scored. 

 

I should edit this - cancel the run if it's a FORCE PLAY - bases loaded.  If runner was NOT forced at home, count the run and call BR out. 

[Replacematt]

 

Agree, but a slide can still be illegal right?

 

Yes, but without a play there cannot be illegal alteration (since the fielder has no action to alter.) So, I would suggest we look at 2-32-1 for what constitutes a legal slide--as long as the runner fulfills those requirements, we are good.

Remember that the contact beyond the base is only an issue on force plays, because that contact is "not in a direct line between bases."

[noumpere]

I'm reading 151 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game and this Play is in the book.  Childress say call both out, regardless if F3 has scored. 

 

I should edit this - cancel the run if it's a FORCE PLAY - bases loaded.  If runner was NOT forced at home, count the run and call BR out. 

Yes, that's exactly the rule and exactly the way I would and have called it.  I dont really see it as one where theres much leeway in the name of not being OOO or good game management.

[noumpere]

Agree, but a slide can still be illegal right?

 

Yes, but without a play there cannot be illegal alteration (since the fielder has no action to alter.) So, I would suggest we look at 2-32-1 for what constitutes a legal slide--as long as the runner fulfills those requirements, we are good.

Remember that the contact beyond the base is only an issue on force plays, because that contact is "not in a direct line between bases."

Disagree because 2.32.2.c applies to all slides only 2.32.2.f applies only to force slides.

[Replacematt]

 

Disagree because 2.32.2.c applies to all slides only 2.32.2.f applies only to force slides.

2.32.2.C specifically only applies to force-play slides.

Now, if you are talking 2-32-2c, then you are correct, and I missed it because 8-4-2 only refers back to 2-32-1 and not 2-32-2.

So, if we have an illegal slide on a non-force play, we have only the infracting runner out and all other runners back to TOP, per 8-4-2b Penalty. So, you'd erase the run and add an out.

Which would then bring up the question...with R2 and R3, and R3 committing an illegal slide at home, where do you put BR? There's no place for him based on the rule...

[johnnyg08]

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B? 

[bam]

Disagree because 2.32.2.c applies to all slides only 2.32.2.f applies only to force slides.

2.32.2.C specifically only applies to force-play slides.

Now, if you are talking 2-32-2c, then you are correct, and I missed it because 8-4-2 only refers back to 2-32-1 and not 2-32-2.

So, if we have an illegal slide on a non-force play, we have only the infracting runner out and all other runners back to TOP, per 8-4-2b Penalty. So, you'd erase the run and add an out.

Which would then bring up the question...with R2 and R3, and R3 committing an illegal slide at home, where do you put BR? There's no place for him based on the rule...

 

That's not the way I read this.  If you have a NON-force play and an illegal slide at the plate, count the run and ring up BR.   

[johnnyg08]

 

Disagree because 2.32.2.c applies to all slides only 2.32.2.f applies only to force slides.

2.32.2.C specifically only applies to force-play slides.

Now, if you are talking 2-32-2c, then you are correct, and I missed it because 8-4-2 only refers back to 2-32-1 and not 2-32-2.

So, if we have an illegal slide on a non-force play, we have only the infracting runner out and all other runners back to TOP, per 8-4-2b Penalty. So, you'd erase the run and add an out.

Which would then bring up the question...with R2 and R3, and R3 committing an illegal slide at home, where do you put BR? There's no place for him based on the rule...

 

That's not the way I read this.  If you have a NON-force play and an illegal slide at the plate, count the run and ring up BR.   

 

That makes sense to me. 

[Replacematt]

 

Disagree because 2.32.2.c applies to all slides only 2.32.2.f applies only to force slides.

2.32.2.C specifically only applies to force-play slides.

Now, if you are talking 2-32-2c, then you are correct, and I missed it because 8-4-2 only refers back to 2-32-1 and not 2-32-2.

So, if we have an illegal slide on a non-force play, we have only the infracting runner out and all other runners back to TOP, per 8-4-2b Penalty. So, you'd erase the run and add an out.

Which would then bring up the question...with R2 and R3, and R3 committing an illegal slide at home, where do you put BR? There's no place for him based on the rule...

 

That's not the way I read this.  If you have a NON-force play and an illegal slide at the plate, count the run and ring up BR.The rule states unequivocally that on an illegal slide, the runner is out. The only time the BR is out on an illegal slide is if it's an FPSR violation, and only in addition to the runner.

[Replacematt]

 

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B?

 

I think one would have to.

[johnnyg08]

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B?

 

I think one would have to.

 

 

What's weird is that we'd count the run and then call him out.   That's where I get confused.

[bam]

 

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B?

 

I think one would have to.

 

 

What's weird is that we'd count the run and then call him out.   That's where I get confused.

He's no longer a runner after he scores.  I don't necessarily agree that you take the run off the board. 

[Replacematt]

 

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B?

 

I think one would have to.

 

 

 

What's weird is that we'd count the run and then call him out.   That's where I get confused.

 

Do we? I'm not seeing a case play in 2-23 or 8-4-2 that covers this.

[johnnyg08]

 

 

Would it be reasonable that we would put BR at 1B?

 

I think one would have to.

 

 

What's weird is that we'd count the run and then call him out.   That's where I get confused.

He's no longer a runner after he scores.  I don't necessarily agree that you take the run off the board. 

 

 

Right but can we call a runner out who has already score?  (based on this scenario only)

[Replacematt]

Just trying this statement on for size: If you can't call him out by virtue of him no longer being a runner, then you don't have an infraction. Only a runner can commit an illegal slide.

[johnnyg08]

Just trying this statement on for size: If you can't call him out by virtue of him no longer being a runner, then you don't have an infraction. Only a runner can commit an illegal slide.

 

 

So then does it have to be malicious?  If he's no longer a runner, then there's no need to slide legally or illegally into F2?

[alex7]

Just trying this statement on for size: If you can't call him out by virtue of him no longer being a runner, then you don't have an infraction. Only a runner can commit an illegal slide.

 

This is where my brain was starting to get to.  IF he's no longer a runner, then sliding past the plate and contacting the catcher on a NON-force play is either:

 

1)  MC     or

2)  Nothing ("Catcher, don't stand there.")

[VolUmp]

This is where my brain was starting to get to.  IF he's no longer a runner, then sliding past the plate and contacting the catcher on a NON-force play is either:

 

1)  MC     or

2)  Nothing ("Catcher, don't stand there.")

................................................................................

You can still have an INT call. He's still a member of the offense, even though he's no longer a runner.  His INT can penalize another runner including the BR.

I wish there was a term in the FED book called RC (reckless Contact) for non-malicious, but still not legal contact.

We have illegal slides, but on a non-slide that is illegal, this term would stop the arguments.

 

It's either IC (Incidental Contact = no penalty), RC (Reckless Contact = out, but no EJ), or MC (Malicious Contact = EJ and perhaps an out).

[bam]

Found the passage i was thinking of:

 

Play 29: B1 steps into the box, and the catcher says: “My, aren’t you a pretty one? My brother would like to meet you.†The umpire stops the “banter.†On the first pitch R2 doubles. The next batter singles, and R2 heads for home. He beats the throw, touches the plate, and wipes out F2 with a crushing crash to the chest.

 

Play 30: Bases loaded. B1 tries to check his swing but instead taps the ball to third. F5 tries to go home for the force on R3, but his throw is wide. R3 slides across the plate and knocks down the catcher, who was not in the process of trying for the out at first.

 

 

 

FED and NCAA rules: The run scores in only one of the plays. Which one? Is that your final answer? Count the run in Play 29 and eject R2 for a “malicious crash†(FED) or “flagrant collision†(NCAA). Cancel the run in Play 30. Both runners touched the plate before they committed infractions. One scores, one doesn’t. The difference: Play 29 is a time play. R2 legally scored a run, so a subsequent infraction cannot affect that run. Play 30 is a force out. In a force-play situation, a runner may not slide across the base, not even home plate, and make contact with a fielder. You may lose some friends when you also call out B1, even though the catcher was not trying to complete the double play.

Childress, Carl (2012-08-02). 151 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game (pp. 32-33).  . Kindle Edition.

 

So.

 

Count the run on the MC

 

Don't count the run on the illegal slide.

 

Where is "count the run" supported by rule?  It's STILL not a legal slide.

[alex7]

This is where my brain was starting to get to.  IF he's no longer a runner, then sliding past the plate and contacting the catcher on a NON-force play is either:

 

1)  MC     or

2)  Nothing ("Catcher, don't stand there.")

................................................................................

You can still have an INT call. He's still a member of the offense, even though he's no longer a runner.  His INT can penalize another runner including the BR.

I wish there was a term in the FED book called RC (reckless Contact) for non-malicious, but still not legal contact.

We have illegal slides, but on a non-slide that is illegal, this term would stop the arguments.

 

It's either IC (Incidental Contact = no penalty), RC (Reckless Contact = out, but no EJ), or MC (Malicious Contact = EJ and perhaps an out).

 

My brain was scrambled.  I was thinking of just a slide with some contact and nothing else happening, no play.

 

If there's a non-force play with a little contact, I think most of us can handle that a little easier as we'll be able to spot if there's INT or if no call is warranted. Contact with the catcher who's trying to tag you will likely look like nothing - just a catcher diving at a player and a player sliding into that moving catcher.

 

It's the "nothing was happening here but now I have a hard slide past the plate hitting the catcher" play that made me think it'd be either MC or nothing.