Jump to content

Sliding (non-FPSR)


834k3r
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 397 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Interesting discussion at our first district rules clinic for this season. In our discussion, it centered on the last criteria of a legal slide--that it has to be within reach of the base. @Senor Azul, feel free to post the FED definition of a legal slide.

In a situation that doesn't involve FPSR, say the runner slides head first towards a base intending to swipe the base with his left hand. He misjudges his slide and he slides so that his hand is an inch away from the base at the end of his slide. The fielder, focused elsewhere, does not tag the runner.

By the definition of a legal slide provided by NFHS, is that a legal slide?

What's your assessment of the situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Interesting discussion at our first district rules clinic for this season. In our discussion, it centered on the last criteria of a legal slide--that it has to be within reach of the base. @Senor Azul, feel free to post the FED definition of a legal slide.

In a situation that doesn't involve FPSR, say the runner slides head first towards a base intending to swipe the base with his left hand. He misjudges his slide and he slides so that his hand is an inch away from the base at the end of his slide. The fielder, focused elsewhere, does not tag the runner.

By the definition of a legal slide provided by NFHS, is that a legal slide?

What's your assessment of the situation?

doesn't say he has to 'touch' the base, does it?  I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

doesn't say he has to 'touch' the base, does it?  I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole

The definition says "within reach" of the base. But yep--I'm not starting that $*** storm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

His hand is an inch away, but I bet his foot can reach the base.  Within fetch or letch.

Possibly, but the point of the hypothetical is the runner ended his slide in a situation where his slide doesn't match the FED definition of a legal slide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take the definition of a legal slide to be further defining what is legal/illegal contact or what is interference or not. Perhaps, if the fielder makes a tag attempt being within reach of the base is a reference point to how far the runner may have moved to avoid a tag. It doesn't sound like the fielder made a tag attempt in this sitch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Possibly, but the point of the hypothetical is the runner ended his slide in a situation where his slide doesn't match the FED definition of a legal slide.

I sure hope your association isn't leaning towards a situation like this to be called an 'illegal slide'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

In a situation that doesn't involve FPSR, say the runner slides head first towards a base intending to swipe the base with his left hand. He misjudges his slide and he slides so that his hand is an inch away from the base at the end of his slide. The fielder, focused elsewhere, does not tag the runner.

By the definition of a legal slide provided by NFHS, is that a legal slide?

I believe it is legal, only if he doesn't make contact with the fielder, or alters the play.

If you look at 2-32-1, definition of a slide. "If a runner slides, he must slide within reach of the base with either a hand or a foot. A runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder (8-4-2b)."

Looking at (8-4-2b). "Any runner is out when he: (b) does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder."

In this situation, if the runner hasn't made contact with the fielder or altered the play, it seems to me that it is legal to do. I would treat it as plain old over sliding the base. In your OP, not sure of the exact details, but as described, I don't have an illegal slide.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I sure hope your association isn't leaning towards a situation like this to be called an 'illegal slide'?

You would only penalize this if the "and" happened, which would be unlikely, but an illegal slide and contact would be interference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lou B said:

I'll give him the inch but he better not try to take a mile !!!

this whole 'conversation/discussion' that happened at this meeting is quite silly.  If you have a NON -FPSR in effect, then you either just have a play at a base, or just a runner sliding into a base.  Let's look at both: 1) play at a base runner sliding in.  If he's sliding in away from the base on a play/tag play, he's more likely to be out because he's not in the vicinity.   2)  Just sliding into a base, ... who cares what he does, ... no ball, no play, just a slide... so what?

I think this discussion is getting into nitty gritty details that don't matter, and can lead to an umpire MSU on the field.  My .02

AND, just to add ... I think the DEFINITION of a LEGAL slide is enforced/defined in FPSR situations, yes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

correct.  But the OP says the discussion is for a NON-FPSR play ....

A legal slide is in the definitions. The FPSR adds a requirement to slide directly. Interference can be called for an illegal slide that is not a force if it altered the actions of the fielder at that base, maybe trying to throw to another base to put out a runner. Hard to picture that happening but R2 sliding north of 3rd base to take out F5 throwing home comes to mind. Never have seen anything like an illegal slide needing to be enforced. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To muddy the waters I found this 2000 Interp. I was of the opinion that the illegal non FPSR slide had to alter the play of the fielder. If you read the rule it also separately references contact. I might be wrong.

SITUATION 12: R1 attempts to steal second base. F2, seeing he has no chance to throw out R1, does not attempt a throw. F4, who is standing behind second base to cover in case of a throw, is contacted by R1, who slid over the bag and contacts F4. RULING: R1 committed an illegal slide when he slid past the back edge of the base. Because he contacted a player during an illegal slide, he is called out. (8-4-2b penalty, 2-32-2c) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

To muddy the waters I found this 2000 Interp. I was of the opinion that the illegal non FPSR slide had to alter the play of the fielder. If you read the rule it also separately references contact. I might be wrong.

SITUATION 12: R1 attempts to steal second base. F2, seeing he has no chance to throw out R1, does not attempt a throw. F4, who is standing behind second base to cover in case of a throw, is contacted by R1, who slid over the bag and contacts F4. RULING: R1 committed an illegal slide when he slid past the back edge of the base. Because he contacted a player during an illegal slide, he is called out. (8-4-2b penalty, 2-32-2c) 

Yes, here's 2-32-2c:

except at home plate, the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder. At home plate, it is permissible for the slider's momentum to carry him through the plate in a straight line (baseline extended, or

But, the penalty is interference.  In your SITUATION 12 above ...interferes with what though? :HS

8-4-2b PENALTY
PENALTY:   The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

To muddy the waters I found this 2000 Interp. I was of the opinion that the illegal non FPSR slide had to alter the play of the fielder. If you read the rule it also separately references contact. I might be wrong.

SITUATION 12: R1 attempts to steal second base. F2, seeing he has no chance to throw out R1, does not attempt a throw. F4, who is standing behind second base to cover in case of a throw, is contacted by R1, who slid over the bag and contacts F4. RULING: R1 committed an illegal slide when he slid past the back edge of the base. Because he contacted a player during an illegal slide, he is called out. (8-4-2b penalty, 2-32-2c) 

IMO, this would fall under malicious contact. The idea of calling a player out for an illegal slide when there is no play being mad will be a tough sell. Where I work, I have a feeling that there would be no less than one EJ and definitely a phone call on the way home asking me to explain myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, concertman1971 said:

IMO, this would fall under malicious contact. The idea of calling a player out for an illegal slide when there is no play being mad will be a tough sell. Where I work, I have a feeling that there would be no less than one EJ and definitely a phone call on the way home asking me to explain myself. 

no ... 'contact' does not equal 'malicious contact'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

no ... 'contact' does not equal 'malicious contact'

Sorry coach, you misheard me.  I said "delicious contact."  You know, like when he hits the fielder in the face with a pie.

 

Apologies for disagreeing that this is an interesting discussion.  Are you calling an illegal slide when the runner misjudges the turf or the mud and his slide stops short of the base?  He isn't within reach ...  (Hint: NO.)

660399c95ddfd27455dfdd6af7aec8cb72dc459b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I sure hope your association isn't leaning towards a situation like this to be called an 'illegal slide'?

Absolutely not. It was just brought up and it prompted discussion that ended up being pretty lively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Apologies for disagreeing that this is an interesting discussion.  Are you calling an illegal slide when the runner misjudges the turf or the mud and his slide stops short of the base?  He isn't within reach ...  (Hint: NO.)

660399c95ddfd27455dfdd6af7aec8cb72dc459b

And that was the general tone of the discussion. I don't think anyone in their right mind would call a runner out for an illegal slide in the hypothetical I presented. I think it falls into the realm of "unintended consequences":  we all know why the "within reach" phrase is included, but it can lead to interesting--albeit rare--situations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...