Jump to content
James88

Runner Doesn't Slide

Recommended Posts

FED rules.

On a ground ball when the defense is trying to turn a double play, how do we rule on a runner that doesn't slide?  Obviously by rule they are not required to slide, but is there any good rule or guidance on where we draw the line and say they interfered with a throw for an attempted double play?

I've always taken the approach that if the runner is in the immediate vicinity of the base and alters play it could be interference.  Otherwise, I figure the fielder has ample opportunity to make a quality throw without being affected by the runner.

I don't find any examples of this type of play in the Case Book, but if I've missed something, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as you said, if the retired runner alters (hinders) the play, it is interference.

Edited by LittleBlue
Correction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2016 Baseball Rule Differences by Carl Childress (section 350, p. 234):

On a force play a runner hit by a throw between bases is NOT guilty of interference if he did not slide when he is in the baseline and ‘not even halfway to second:  The runner cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path.’ (Hopkins, website 2007 #3)

Note from the BRD:  This official interpretation seems to indicate that a runner who is more than halfway had better hit the dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a protest on this yesterday. R1 didn't slide, went in standing and hindered F6. U3 didn't initially call it, but after the DC came out, U3 conferred with us (I was U1) and both PU and I had interference.

When U3 changed his call, OC protested. They won the game so protest withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to slide, but they also my attempt to avoid. If he goes in standing up, and interferes, then call it. That call may come from PU in a 2-man system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

We had a protest on this yesterday. R1 didn't slide, went in standing and hindered F6. U3 didn't initially call it, but after the DC came out, U3 conferred with us (I was U1) and both PU and I had interference.

When U3 changed his call, OC protested. They won the game so protest withdrawn.

What was the protest based on? It is a judgment call. The umpires talked and got the play correct on a judgment call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, maineump said:

They don't have to slide, but they also my attempt to avoid. If he goes in standing up, and interferes, then call it. That call may come from PU in a 2-man system.

How does one define interference on this?  If he is just running to the bag and doesn't slide AND doesn't do anything intentionally, would that be interference?  Is he required to get out of the way so the fielder can make his throw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

How does one define interference on this?  If he is just running to the bag and doesn't slide AND doesn't do anything intentionally, would that be interference?  Is he required to get out of the way so the fielder can make his throw?

If it effects the throw, then grab interference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stl_ump said:

How does one define interference on this?  If he is just running to the bag and doesn't slide AND doesn't do anything intentionally, would that be interference?  Is he required to get out of the way so the fielder can make his throw?

A useful concept from the rule is, "alters the pattern of play": if the fielder has to do something different due to the position of the runner, that's INT/FPSR.

Intent is not required.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maineump said:

What was the protest based on? It is a judgment call. The umpires talked and got the play correct on a judgment call.

If they said the called the runner out for failure to slide then that's protestable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If they said the called the runner out for failure to slide then that's protestable.

I don't believe in FED you can call a runner out for failure to slide, as a slide is not mandatory. He would be out before the slide, going in without sliding would be interference if it effects the back side of the play. Still not sure where the protest would come from? We don't have the protest in our state, but my understanding it has to be a misapplied rule and not a judgment call. Interference is judgment in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, maven said:

A useful concept from the rule is, "alters the pattern of play": if the fielder has to do something different due to the position of the runner, that's INT/FPSR.

Intent is not required.

So you are saying that if he his just running to the base and he doesn't want to slide he has to get out of the way?  How is he supposed to get to the base if he has to alter HIS path to accommodate the fielder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stl_ump said:

So you are saying that if he his just running to the base and he doesn't want to slide he has to get out of the way?  How is he supposed to get to the base if he has to alter HIS path to accommodate the fielder?

He would already be out in the case we are talking about. The INT would occur after he is out and the fielder is trying to get the out at 1B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what everyone is saying about the fielder having to alter what they are doing. 

Let's change it up a bit and say the runner DOES slide right at the base and not to the side. A perfectly legal slide. The fielder, as he is stepping on the base, realizes he'd better alter his path because he sees he's going to get tangled up with the sliding runner. How is that different from him altering his path due to the non sliding runner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

So you are saying that if he his just running to the base and he doesn't want to slide he has to get out of the way?  How is he supposed to get to the base if he has to alter HIS path to accommodate the fielder?

Yes.

 

On a force play the runner can slide legally or run away from the play.

Sliding toward the fielder (who is not on the base) is a FPSR without contact / altering the play.  Just running at the base requires contact / altering the play (as do most other illegal slides)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

I get what everyone is saying about the fielder having to alter what they are doing. 

Let's change it up a bit and say the runner DOES slide right at the base and not to the side. A perfectly legal slide. The fielder, as he is stepping on the base, realizes he'd better alter his path because he sees he's going to get tangled up with the sliding runner. How is that different from him altering his path due to the non sliding runner?

The responsibility is now on the defense. The runner did what he was supposed to do.

The defense needs to come off the back of the bag (in NFHS, the runner can't slide through the bag) or off from the side of it. If the runner 'takes out' the player at the bag legally (meaning he slid properly into the bag, and did not over slide), then it is a great job by the runner to break up the double play. He is probably still out, or very close play, or why else would the fielder still be at the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, maineump said:

I don't believe in FED you can call a runner out for failure to slide, as a slide is not mandatory. He would be out before the slide, going in without sliding would be interference if it effects the back side of the play. Still not sure where the protest would come from? We don't have the protest in our state, but my understanding it has to be a misapplied rule and not a judgment call. Interference is judgment in this case.

I know you can't so if the umpires said that's why they called the out it is protestable because it is a misapplied rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, maineump said:

The responsibility is now on the defense. The runner did what he was supposed to do.

The defense needs to come off the back of the bag (in NFHS, the runner can't slide through the bag) or off from the side of it. If the runner 'takes out' the player at the bag legally (meaning he slid properly into the bag, and did not over slide), then it is a great job by the runner to break up the double play. He is probably still out, or very close play, or why else would the fielder still be at the bag.

In other words if he slides he's OK and if he goes in standing up it's INT.  So we have a "slide rule" then? :-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stl_ump said:

In other words if he slides he's OK and if he goes in standing up it's INT.  So we have a "slide rule" then. :-0

Simply put yes. If he opted not slide, then he has to avoid the play (ie - go opposite the fielder to make the play).

I guess you could call it an "avoid rule", as sliding would also be avoiding the throw/play by being under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sounds like what people are saying is as a general rule the runner better get down if there is any doubt because basically the entire responsibility of avoidance is his.  Legal slide - no issues.  Standing up, especially near or immediate vicinity of bag - pretty good chance of interference.

To use Maven's term of "altering the pattern of play", the umpire will always use his/her judgment to determine if the fielder was in fact hindered and the play was altered.

As always, thanks for the responses.  This has been helpful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

In other words if he slides he's OK and if he goes in standing up it's INT.  So we have a "slide rule" then? :-0

Slide or get out of the way.

 

That language (in concept) is not really that uncommon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maineump said:

What was the protest based on? It is a judgment call. The umpires talked and got the play correct on a judgment call.

We said that the runner doesn't have to slide, but if he goes in standing, he can't alter the play.  The coach disagreed.  In this case, there was also contact which altered the play. Here's a still photo of it (view is from the third base dugout).

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.43.00 AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

In other words if he slides he's OK and if he goes in standing up it's INT.  So we have a "slide rule" then? :-0

He can veer off. A slide is NOT required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8.4.2c 

On 5/13/2016 at 10:07 PM, James88 said:

FED rules.

On a ground ball when the defense is trying to turn a double play, how do we rule on a runner that doesn't slide?  Obviously by rule they are not required to slide, but is there any good rule or guidance on where we draw the line and say they interfered with a throw for an attempted double play?

I've always taken the approach that if the runner is in the immediate vicinity of the base and alters play it could be interference.  Otherwise, I figure the fielder has ample opportunity to make a quality throw without being affected by the runner.

I don't find any examples of this type of play in the Case Book, but if I've missed something, please point me in the right direction.

8.4.2 b (alters the action of the fielder) & c (doesn't attempt to avoid contact)  cover the no slide collision with a fielder making a play on him. Just because he's didn't illegally slide doesn't mean you don't call interference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Guest
      By Guest
      Is there a Force Play Slide Rule in NFHS Fastpitch softball like there is in baseball?  What rule number?  If not what are the major differences between how it is called?  Can a girl go in to second base standing up obviously making the 2nd baseman throw over her to turn the double play?  I know this would be an easy FPSR in NFHS or NCAA Baseball but have seen it not called 3 times in NFHS softball games this year.  So I was wondering if there was a major rule difference that I was unaware of.  Thanks.  
    • By 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.
    • By UmpJM
      Guys,
       
      I'm having a little difficulty persuading a couple of colleagues about the proper interpretation of the FED FPSR. I would appreciate it if you would all take my little "FPSR" test. 
       
      Any supporting commentary would also be appreciated.
       
      Thanks.
       
      JM
    • By johnnyg08
      Reviewing the guidelines for an illegal slide....letter "f" caught my eye
      "f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases."
      To those of you out there who work NFHS baseball.
      On a double play ball is letter "f" to be interpreted as a violation of FPSR if R1 goes in standing to 2B past the halfway point? 
      Is there an NFHS interpretation to support a violation or no violation?
      In my mind, I read it as the NFHS wanting the runners to get down or veer away to avoid an overzealous middle infielder slinging the baseball into R1 chest or face. A preventative safety measure. 
      A 2007 NFHS Interpretation States the following but doesn't necessarily apply to the question being asked:
      SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)
      2016 BRD Childress seems to support the assertion.
      See attachments.
      What are your thoughts? 
      Thanks.
       
       


    • By grayhawk
      I am confused about the ruling on these two plays from BRD. I hope it's OK to post these:

      *Play 170-329:FED only. R1 moving on the pitch. B1 hits to the shortstop, who tries - not in time - for the out at second. The second baseman throws the ball to first, after which R1 pops-up on the base, jostling the fielder. Ruling: Though the contact occurred after the throw and did not alter the play, it resulted from an illegal slide: Both R1 and B1 are out.

      *Play 173-229: R1 stealing. B1 grounds slowly to F6, whose throw to second is not in time. R1 then executes a pop-up slide while F6 is on top of the base, preventing the second baseman from throwing to first. Ruling: (EXPANDED) In Fed/OBR, R1 is out, but B1 goes to first.
      **(ADDED) Note 321: Since R1 beat the throw, no double play is possible. In FED/OBR, then, only the interfering runner can be out. It's simply interference by a runner (one is out), not a retired runner (two would be out).

      These two plays are very close to being the same. In the first play, it does not state whether or not B1 was thrown out on the play, but if R1 committed an illegal slide, then it wouldn't matter - B1 is out regardless. Note 321 is very confusing, however, because it says that "since R1 beat the throw" - this is the case in both plays.

      Also, in the first play, there was contact but the play was NOT altered. In the second play, there was no contact but the play WAS altered.

      Can anyone shed some light on this? Also, I would recommend BRD to anyone and everyone who is serious about learning the rules - even if you only umpire under one jurisdiction. It's a fantastic piece of work.
×
×
  • Create New...