Runner Doesn't Slide

[James88]

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.

[LittleBlue]

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

Edited May 13, 2016 by LittleBlue
Correction

[Senor Azul]

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.

[grayhawk]

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 They won the game so protest withdrawn.

[maineump]

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.

[maineump]

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 They won the game so protest withdrawn.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.

[stl_ump]

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?

[maineump]

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

[maven]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[maineump]

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.

[stl_ump]

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?

[maineump]

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.

[stl_ump]

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?

[noumpere]

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)

[maineump]

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[stl_ump]

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

[maineump]

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.

[James88]

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.

 

[noumpere]

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.

[grayhawk]

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).

[Rich Ives]

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.

[Ironhead17]

FORCE PLAY SLIDE RULE - got to make a legal slide or get out of the way. Pic shows he made contact beyond the bag, he'd be out for interference.

[ricka56]

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.