Failed slide takes out catcher 6 feet past home, trail runner scores

[Guest Mike Lippert]

Had a situation that was new to me (10 years as an ump, been 10 years since I did a game) and actually happened *to* me.

Luckily, it was caught on video: https://prepspotlight.tv/TownBall

5th game down, Senior World Series Semifinal, Chuggers vs M

Click "Watch Highlights" 

The play happens at the 1 minute mark

Situation is 0 out, bases loaded. Bunt to P, P makes errant throw home, C (me) goes to chase ball and gets tackled by a horrible slide, trail runner scores (would have been a play if the lead runner didn't take me out)

in my mind, it should be interference given how ridiculous the slide was, but what's the remedy? 

ump ruled live ball. Still have no clue if that's correct.

what's your call?

 

 

[Richvee]

I think you have a case for interference here. OBR 6.01(a)(5)…. It is interference when a lead runner who has just been put out or scored interferes with any play being made on a following runner. 
 

The other side of the coin is the runner is just continuing through the plate, which, in and of itself is not reason for interference. 
6.01(a)(5) comment; if the batter or runner continue to advance after being put out he shall not by that act alone be considered hindering or impeding the fielders. ( I think it would’ve safe to extrapolate that to include a runner crossing home plate. ) 

So, I think what we have here is another classic example of a “ judgment call”. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I think you have a case for interference here. OBR 6.01(a)(5)…. It is interference when a lead runner who has just been put out or scored interferes with any play being made on a following runner. 
 

The other side of the coin is the runner is just continuing through the plate, which, in and of itself is not reason for interference. 
6.01(a)(5) comment; if the batter or runner continue to advance after being put out he shall not by that act alone be considered hindering or impeding the fielders. ( I think it would’ve safe to extrapolate that to include a runner crossing home plate. ) 

So, I think what we have here is another classic example of a “ judgment call”. 

This is a force play and as such, a slide has to be bona fide. It was not, as he did not make contact with the ground before reaching the base. Thus, this is interference under 6.01(j). Not only is he out, so is the BR.

[ArchAngel72]

To me it looks like the player stepped on home plate and slipped causing his stumble into the catcher. It's not on purpose but to me still causes INT by the Runner

 

[Guest JustAnother]

To me, the feet-first slide abort and subsequent two-hand forcible push to the catcher (extending arms), versus an accidental contact, seems a bit egregious and looked purposeful.  I have INT.

 

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, Guest JustAnother said:

To me, the feet-first slide abort and subsequent two-hand forcible push to the catcher (extending arms), versus an accidental contact, seems a bit egregious and looked purposeful.  I have INT.

Just stop with that nonsense...at best he's bracing himself...he slipped/tripped over the plate and there is nothing purposeful, and certainly not egregious, here.  Extending arms is not an indication of intent.  Run full speed and trip and try NOT to extend your arms.

When he falls he clips the catcher's legs - that's what causes the catcher to fall.

 

9 hours ago, Matt said:

This is a force play and as such, a slide has to be bona fide. It was not, as he did not make contact with the ground before reaching the base. Thus, this is interference under 6.01(j). Not only is he out, so is the BR.

He did not initiate contact "for the purpose of breaking up a double play".   He tripped.   He, being forced, was trying to get to the plate as fast as he can, since he is allowed to over-run it.  His foot slid over the plate, and then when it caught dirt it threw him forward and he clipped the catcher's legs....who was already running to the backstop to get the ball that had been thrown away.

Train wreck, SH*# happens, call it what you want, but calling both players out would be extreme.

At best it's interference by a scored runner...and I think that would be a bit much too - he's not required to disappear the moment he touches the plate.

[Jimurray]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

I think you have a case for interference here. OBR 6.01(a)(5)…. It is interference when a lead runner who has just been put out or scored interferes with any play being made on a following runner. 
 

The other side of the coin is the runner is just continuing through the plate, which, in and of itself is not reason for interference. 
6.01(a)(5) comment; if the batter or runner continue to advance after being put out he shall not by that act alone be considered hindering or impeding the fielders. ( I think it would’ve safe to extrapolate that to include a runner crossing home plate. ) 

So, I think what we have here is another classic example of a “ judgment call”. 

 

10 hours ago, Matt said:

This is a force play and as such, a slide has to be bona fide. It was not, as he did not make contact with the ground before reaching the base. Thus, this is interference under 6.01(j). Not only is he out, so is the BR.

I think you have the tail wagging the dog when you don't allow a runner to go into his base standing up on a force play. The addition of 6.01(j) was to prevent slides away from the base which were designed to take out the pivot man. I don't think you can literally use the lack of a bona fide slide to call interference on a runner going in standing up. Let's say a runner did slide straight in complying with the rule and popped up, now standing on the base. That would not be considered interference if it hindered the pivot man. I also don't think we can allow that runner to overrun HP and interfere. While Wendelstedt protects the BR when overrunning 1B I don't think we can protect a runner overrunning HP. If we do, I don't think he is protected all the way to the dugout so where would the protection stop?

[SH0102]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

Just stop with that nonsense...at best he's bracing himself...he slipped/tripped over the plate and there is nothing purposeful, and certainly not egregious, here.  Extending arms is not an indication of intent.  Run full speed and trip and try NOT to extend your arms.

When he falls he clips the catcher's legs - that's what causes the catcher to fall.

 

He did not initiate contact "for the purpose of breaking up a double play".   He tripped.   He, being forced, was trying to get to the plate as fast as he can, since he is allowed to over-run it.  His foot slid over the plate, and then when it caught dirt it threw him forward and he clipped the catcher's legs....who was already running to the backstop to get the ball that had been thrown away.

Train wreck, SH*# happens, call it what you want, but calling both players out would be extreme.

At best it's interference by a scored runner...and I think that would be a bit much too - he's not required to disappear the moment he touches the plate.

Beerguy....it does not matter that he is "trying to get to the plate as fast as he can".  On a FORCE PLAY, the runner MUST slide legally (or veer away which is irrelevant here since he was not put out by initial throw).  He is not permitted to run into HP standing up anymore than he would at 2nd base.  This is the whole purpose of the FORCE-PLAY-slide-rule.

By not sliding, he puts himself at danger of interfering, which he did, stumble or not, intentional or not, with the catchers ability to make a subsequent play.

By letter of the law, this is a FPSR violation and double play.  If you want to split hairs and say "but he INT with the catcher while F2 was trying to make a subsequent play" and call the run as counting and rule R2 (now coming home from third) out for the INT, you probably wouldn't get much argument.

But by letter of the law, if a play is being made on R3 in a force situation, he must slide legally.  If he slides legally, he would not stumble and int with catcher.  His non-slide is what caused that action, so yes, Matt was correct

[Replacematt]

I don't agree that this was a stumble. I think it was a late slide and subject to the rule I mentioned above. 

[beerguy55]

7 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

By letter of the law, this is a FPSR violation and double play.  If you want to split hairs and say "but he INT with the catcher while F2 was trying to make a subsequent play" and call the run as counting and rule R2 (now coming home from third) out for the INT, you probably wouldn't get much argument.

But by letter of the law, if a play is being made on R3 in a force situation, he must slide legally.  If he slides legally, he would not stumble and int with catcher.  His non-slide is what caused that action, so yes, Matt was correct

By "letter of the law" this is not FPSR and does not meet the conditions of 6.01(j)...the runner did not initiate contact "for the purpose of breaking up a double play".  He tripped.

If there is some other interpretation/case play/Supreme Court ruling further clarifying the meaning or spirit of the rule that is fine, but if you are arguing letter of the law the exact wording in rule book literally disqualifies this scenario from the double play interference rule.

Btw - who calls a squeeze with bases loaded?!?!?

[Replacematt]

14 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

By "letter of the law" this is not FPSR and does not meet the conditions of 6.01(j)...the runner did not initiate contact "for the purpose of breaking up a double play".  He tripped.

If there is some other interpretation/case play/Supreme Court ruling further clarifying the meaning or spirit of the rule that is fine, but if you are arguing letter of the law the exact wording in rule book literally disqualifies this scenario from the double play interference rule.

Btw - who calls a squeeze with bases loaded?!?!?

I've seen it twice, once with several players on this very offensive team (when they played more competitive ball,) so there is that...

Also, watch him start his slide about two feet in front of the plate. There was no stumble whatsoever. You can see him drop his ass and flex his leg.

[beerguy55]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

I've seen it twice, once with several players on this very offensive team (when they played more competitive ball,) so there is that...

Also, watch him start his slide about two feet in front of the plate. There was no stumble whatsoever. You can see him drop his ass and flex his leg.

We just see two different things...I do see a very late decision to slide...I see his foot/cleat slip/slide across the base, and then likely catches the dirt on the other side (this is inferred since the scorecard blocks it).   Yes, late slide, in probably just being really undecided on what to do - been there done that...but after that I see a trip, nothing intentional.

Do you agree that IF this is an unintentional trip/stumble it's not a double play?

[Jimurray]

44 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

Beerguy....it does not matter that he is "trying to get to the plate as fast as he can".  On a FORCE PLAY, the runner MUST slide legally (or veer away which is irrelevant here since he was not put out by initial throw).  He is not permitted to run into HP standing up anymore than he would at 2nd base.  This is the whole purpose of the FORCE-PLAY-slide-rule.

By not sliding, he puts himself at danger of interfering, which he did, stumble or not, intentional or not, with the catchers ability to make a subsequent play.

By letter of the law, this is a FPSR violation and double play.  If you want to split hairs and say "but he INT with the catcher while F2 was trying to make a subsequent play" and call the run as counting and rule R2 (now coming home from third) out for the INT, you probably wouldn't get much argument.

But by letter of the law, if a play is being made on R3 in a force situation, he must slide legally.  If he slides legally, he would not stumble and int with catcher.  His non-slide is what caused that action, so yes, Matt was correct

Is this OBR or FED? I thought it was OBR based on one catcher’s skullcap. If OBR there is no FPSR. There is a rule about sliding to bases on double play attempts. 

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

We just see two different things...I do see a very late decision to slide...I see his foot/cleat slip/slide across the base, and then likely catches the dirt on the other side (this is inferred since the scorecard blocks it).   Yes, late slide, in probably just being really undecided on what to do - been there done that...but after that I see a trip, nothing intentional.

Do you agree that IF this is an unintentional trip/stumble it's not a double play?

I won't say yes unequivocally, because there are other things that might come into play.

If you see a late decision to slide, he has violated the rule. This is a safety rule and unless there's evidence to the contrary, a late slide is an intentional act to break up a double play. His body starts the slide before the plate but does not get down legally (awkwardness at the plate notwithstanding.) The slide is really obvious to me, so I'm kinda concerned here with those calling this a stumble--you can see the sliding posture before the foot gets to the plate. Not to be a mindreader, but he probably expected an easy run home with a properly executed bunt, then realized a play was happening and he needed to break it up. 

 

[Mudisfun]

I have noting. 

F2 is set up to take the play properly, leaving plenty of room for R3 to acquire the base. 

F1 makes an awesome throw pulling F2 off the plate and suddenly and directly into R3's path.

All I see is R3 doing the 'oh crap!' and trying not to kill F2... To me he just tried to stop anyway possible. You could try and make an argument for retired runner interference, but that to me would be a stretch and would be rewarding the defense for creating this scenario. 

[Umpire942]

nothing. in my personal judgement