LL R3 interference on Double-Play to 1st?

[webspinnre]

I had a 9-10 game tonight with bases loaded and 1 out. Ball hit to third, thrown home for the force. As F2 turns to throw to 1st, R3 slides late and high and drops F2. I call time and interference and call out runner at 1st on the double play. This seems like it ought to be the right call, but I'm trying to find the rule to back it up. LL has a must attempt to avoid contact rule, but it doesn't appear to apply to force plays, but to tag plays (7.08a3 says "runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag"). Even if it did, that'd only result in the runner being out, and he was already out on the force. I probably could've even called malicious contact and tossed the kid, but that doesn't do anything other than remove the player, as he was already out at home. I'm leaning towards 7.09e - "any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of a teammate". Does this sound like an accurate interpretation? Is there a better one?

[Mudisfun]

7.09e sounds like it was written with your play in mind. I would be grabbing 2 outs as well as maybe tossing R3 depending on the contact. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smckin]

I absolutely agree with Mudisfun... Good Call webspinnre

[noumpere]

I'm going out on a limb a bit here because I don't work LL, but, in general, the plate is no different from second on this type of play.

 

So, if the play had been 5-4-3 instead of 5-2-3, what would you have called?  Same answer on the play at the plate.

 

way too often, umpires have an easy (and mostly correct) answer on the "usual" double-play, but get all flummoxed when it's not.

[Rich Ives]

To get a DP in LL and OBR the interference has to be a willful deliberate attempt to break up the DP. No woulda/shoulda involved.

You most likely botched this one.

 

 

[DVA7130]

Definitely interference.

I would likely lean towards interference by an offensive teammate, and if you're keeping the book, R2 is out not R1.

[Rich Ives]

Read noumpere's post. Factor in what I posted.

98% chance it is NOT interference, especially with a 9-10 game

[webspinnre]

To get a DP in LL and OBR the interference has to be a willful deliberate attempt to break up the DP. No woulda/shoulda involved.

You most likely botched this one.

 

 

As mentioned in my OP, I probably could've tossed the kid for malicious contact. It was a late, high slide, at the inside of the plate, and took the catcher out at the shins, after the player was out on the force call. In the words of my third base umpire, "he trucked him" (both he and I had intentional).

[grozzly]

Read noumpere's post. Factor in what I posted.

98% chance it is NOT interference, especially with a 9-10 game

+1

With 9-10 kids, hard to tell if there is an intention to break up a double play....

Also, as Noumpere said, home plate is not different than 3rd or 2nd base. Even if a bit late, if the slide is "legal", no interference.

[Rich Ives]

As mentioned in my OP, I probably could've tossed the kid for malicious contact. It was a late, high slide, at the inside of the plate, and took the catcher out at the shins, after the player was out on the force call. In the words of my third base umpire, "he trucked him" (both he and I had intentional).

LL doesn't have a MC rule. You can toss the runner for UC but you can't call a DP for it.

 

Also, the LL rule IS " . . slide or attempt to go around . .", and IS NOT " . . attempt to avoid contact . ."  Key difference.  (FYI hurdling is legal in LL).

[noumpere]

As mentioned in my OP, I probably could've tossed the kid for malicious contact. It was a late, high slide, at the inside of the plate, and took the catcher out at the shins, after the player was out on the force call. In the words of my third base umpire, "he trucked him" (both he and I had intentional).

those two phrases seem contradictory.

 

This doesn't even seem to violate a FPSR clause (if one exists) (recognizing that the language "inside of the plate" could be read in multiple ways)

 

I'm not saying you are wrong in the conclusion, because there is some HTBT, but your description makes it hard to support.

[DVA7130]

7.09e sounds like it was written with your play in mind. I would be grabbing 2 outs as well as maybe tossing R3 depending on the contact. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mudisfun nailed it.

[Rich Ives]

Mudisfun nailed it.

Only on the second Tuesday of the 7th week in December in Maine.

[webspinnre]

those two phrases seem contradictory.

 

This doesn't even seem to violate a FPSR clause (if one exists) (recognizing that the language "inside of the plate" could be read in multiple ways)

 

I'm not saying you are wrong in the conclusion, because there is some HTBT, but your description makes it hard to support.

It was high as far as verticality (took the catcher on the shins instead of at the feet), and inside (meaning closer to the pitcher's side of the plate, as opposed to the fence side). In any case, I'm not asking on help on intentionality, both umpires who saw the play had it as intentional. Was just trying to figure out what rule this goes under, as the "must slide or attempt to avoid contact rule" appears to only apply to tag plays, and in this case he did slide. There is no FPSR in little league, hence the looking at the rules that do exist, as he clearly took out the catcher as the catcher was trying to throw to first for a chance at the double play.

Edited July 15, 2015 by webspinnre

[Rich Ives]

It was high as far as verticality (took the catcher on the shins instead of at the feet), and inside (meaning closer to the pitcher's side of the plate, as opposed to the fence side). In any case, I'm not asking on help on intentionality, both umpires who saw the play had it as intentional. Was just trying to figure out what rule this goes under, as the "must slide or attempt to avoid contact rule" appears to only apply to tag plays, and in this case he did slide. There is no FPSR in little league, hence the looking at the rules that do exist, as he clearly took out the catcher as the catcher was trying to throw to first for a chance at the double play.

Even with a FED or NCAA FPSR the slide is legal because the fielder was hit below the knee level. You need to grasp that so far you haven't described anything that is a violation. He slid. He hit the fielder below the knee.  And in LL/OBR you only need to slide within reach of the plate. Legal all day.

And once again, the LL rule is "slide or attempt to go around". It is not " . . or attempt to avoid contact".

[Replacematt]

Nothing illegal here.

[webspinnre]

Even with a FED or NCAA FPSR the slide is legal because the fielder was hit below the knee level. You need to grasp that so far you haven't described anything that is a violation. He slid. He hit the fielder below the knee.  And in LL/OBR you only need to slide within reach of the plate. Legal all day.

And once again, the LL rule is "slide or attempt to go around". It is not " . . or attempt to avoid contact".

Like I said, judgment by both umpires who saw it was that the take-out slide was intentional ("he trucked him"). He intentionally took out the catcher after he was already out on the force play. Unless you're telling me that little league rules allow intentional take-out slides to break up a double-play, which would be news to me. My call has nothing to do with the LL slide or attempt to go around rule, as he wasn't called out on that, nor was the other player called out on that. As I said in the OP, we considered ejecting him for malicious contact under 9.01d for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The only reason I even brought up the slide or attempt to go around rule 7.08a3 (which I directly quoted in the OP) was to point out that it doesn't apply to this situation as it specifically refers to a fielder with the ball waiting to make a tag. DVA suggests that R2 is out, not R1, which appears to be 7.09g, though that appears to apply to the batter-runner, and wouldn't apply to R3 in this situation. It also appears to only apply to fielding a batted ball.

My question was whether or not 7.09e applies in this situation, given that it says:

"any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of a teammate".

All I was asking is if this rule would apply in this circumstance, given that R3 "has just been put out" and by his intentional slide he hindered/impeded a following play made on a runner at first.

[Replacematt]

No, it doesn't. As stated already, a slide in LL is legal if it is within reach of the plate. Also, anyone who thinks that a true slide that's at the shins is MC needs to get off the field.

[webspinnre]

He intentionally took the catcher out, after he was already out on the force play. In the judgment of both umpires watching the play (the other one who has been doing district and section all-star games for 10+ years), he intentionally took out the catcher after he was already out. It was unsportsmanlike and dangerous. If you want me off the field you can take that up with the District Chief Umpire who assigned me to the game, and has me working two section all-star games this week. You can also take it up with the District President and the District Safety Officer, both of whom were in attendance.

More importantly, the rule I quoted doesn't require intent, and doesn't say anything about if a slide is legal, it just says that a player who has been put out hinders or impedes. Him taking out the catcher hindered and impeded him from making a play in my judgment. All I'm asking is if I'm correctly applying the rule.

Edited July 16, 2015 by webspinnre

[Replacematt]

Let me be blunt. There was nothing illegal about this slide. There was nothing malicious about it, unless you want to start tossing every kid who slides hard. There is no rule against taking a player out when it is done without violating any specific rule. 7.09e has a specific interpretation when hindrance is caused by a slide, which has already been mentioned twice. This was an incorrect call.

 

 

 

[webspinnre]

Where do I find these 7.09e interpretations that say that it's okay to intentionally take out a fielder on a slide?

[Replacematt]

It's in MLBUM.

[webspinnre]

Which applies to Little League?

[Replacematt]

Yes. The wording is identical. Otherwise anytime a retired runner made contact on a slide, you'd have interference. Which, to me, is pretty much what you're arguing.

[webspinnre]

Googling found me a copy of a 2013 LL Rules Interpretations Manual. This appears to be the language we're discussing:

If sliding into second base, the runner must be able to reach the base with hand or feet. If the sliding runner is not able to reach the base with his/her hand or feet, and in the umpires judgment the slide caused the second basemen to not complete the double play, call interference and get the out at 1st base also

Presumably this also applies to the plate, although it isn't stated. Additionally, if the intent is for this to also mean that if a player can touch the base, then anything goes, it's poorly written from a logic statement. This statement says, "If not-A, then B." The statement "If A, then not-B" doesn't actually logically follow.

That being said, discussions of this interpretation seem to suggest that apparently the interpretation is, as you mention, that as long as you can touch the base, intent is irrelevant. It seems inconvenient as an umpire to have a rule book say one thing, but actually mean that one thing, unless some other things that aren't mentioned in the rule book, in which case, not that one thing.