No slide after passed ball

[HumblePie]

FED Varsity game. 

No outs. Bases loaded.

Passed ball, all runners try to advance.

Catcher corrals the ball, flips it back to the pitcher covering home, and one half a stride before R3 steps on the plate, the thrown ball hits R3 in the right hip as the pitcher awaits the throw.

Nothing?

INT?

[ArchAngel72]

Any contact with the pitcher?

 

[Replacematt]

22 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Any contact with the pitcher?

 

Why would that matter? 

[HumblePie]

Yes, contact with the pitcher's glove and outstretched forearm.

[noumpere]

If you are asking whether the runner needs to slide, then no. Unless the contact with the glove/arm was intentional or malicious (both extremely unlikely), this is nothing. 

[834k3r]

There's no code that requires a runner to slide.

In the OP, the only way I'm calling INT is if I'm 100% sure he was intentionally doing something.

Otherwise, I've got nothing. I'm not sure why I should be rewarding the defense for their inability to pitch and catch.

[Velho]

Agreed that OP sounds like nothing.

Question though: Reading the rulebook, I see runner is out if "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" and "does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on the runner". 

Since the rules differentiate between malicious and "illegal" contact, I"m curious what is the definition of "illegal contact" or "legal attempt to avoid"?

 

[ArchAngel72]

 

3 hours ago, HumblePie said:

Yes, contact with the pitcher's glove and outstretched forearm.

3 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Why would that matter? 

Because of "E" below

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Agreed that OP sounds like nothing.

Question though: Reading the rulebook, I see runner is out if "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" and "does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on the runner". 

Since the rules differentiate between malicious and "illegal" contact, I"m curious what is the definition of "illegal contact" or "legal attempt to avoid"?

 

 

[ArchAngel72]

3 hours ago, HumblePie said:

Yes, contact with the pitcher's glove and outstretched forearm.

Based on your response I am assuming it was not malicious.

 

If it was incidental I got "It was nothing"

[Replacematt]

9 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

Because of "E" below

 

No. In a non-force situation, that only applies to an illegal slide.

[MadMax]

18 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Because of "E" below

... but E defines Malicious Contact specifically, and this play does not exhibit Malicious Contact. So, E isn't involved. 

B is much more applicable in this play, and note: 

"does not legally slide" meaning that he did slide, and that the slide was, itself, illegal (definition elsewhere). In this case, he didn't slide, so it's not that...

"illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" (emphasis mine). A fielder coming running in to receive a (potential) throw is not an immediate act-of-making-a-play. Furthermore... 

b.2 "Runners are never required to slide" spells it out rather succinctly. Many baseball participants incorrectly conflate that all plays at the plate must include a slide. They don't. Sliding is an option, and when chosen, the slide must be legal. 

[Velho]

So given that going in standing up is (technically) "not sliding legally", the language of "b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" may be better stated as "slides illegally and cause illegal contact".

 

[HumblePie]

Velho,

I think you just cleared up something in my mind, the rule could be worded better, and I was viewing this play that he failed to slide legally as he did something illegal.

Also,

I believe I have seen language in youth brands of baseball that state,

"When a tag play is evident ..." and goes on to state that the player must behave very similarly to the FPSR ... SLIDE ... or GIVE HIMSELF UP.

AVOID COLLISIONS AT ALL COSTS

[Velho]

1 hour ago, HumblePie said:

I believe I have seen language in youth brands of baseball that state,

"When a tag play is evident ..." and goes on to state that the player must behave very similarly to the FPSR ... SLIDE ... or GIVE HIMSELF UP.

AVOID COLLISIONS AT ALL COSTS

LL says:

7.08(a)(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag.

INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENTS:

Ø Rule 7.08(a)(3) does not prevent or make hurdling illegal.

Ø Rule 7.08(a)(3) is easily the most misunderstood rule in the book. It is easily broken down as follows:

1. 2. The fielder must have the ball in his/her possession; AND

The fielder must be WAITING to make the tag;

If BOTH of those two criteria are satisfied, then the runner must EITHER:

1. SLIDE; OR

2. 3. ATTEMPT to get around the fielder OR.

RETREAT to the previous base OR

4. GIVE THEMSELVES UP

Ø Notice that the rule says “attempt to get around”, not “avoid”. Contact may occur with no penalty assessed.

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, Velho said:

LL says:

7.08(a)(3) the runner does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag.

INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENTS:

Ø Rule 7.08(a)(3) does not prevent or make hurdling illegal.

Ø Rule 7.08(a)(3) is easily the most misunderstood rule in the book. It is easily broken down as follows:

1. 2. The fielder must have the ball in his/her possession; AND

The fielder must be WAITING to make the tag;

If BOTH of those two criteria are satisfied, then the runner must EITHER:

1. SLIDE; OR

2. 3. ATTEMPT to get around the fielder OR.

RETREAT to the previous base OR

4. GIVE THEMSELVES UP

Ø Notice that the rule says “attempt to get around”, not “avoid”. Contact may occur with no penalty assessed.

That is (generally) true in Fed, too. It’s not the OP. 

[ArchAngel72]

On 4/1/2025 at 2:16 PM, Replacematt said:

No. In a non-force situation, that only applies to an illegal slide.

 

So If he were to have barreled full force into the pitcher at the plate and the pitcher could not field the ball you would call him safe?

 

I was merely trying to see more of the picture.  Being this is reading the situation I had questions as to well did he hit him or did he not hit him and if he did collide with him was it done on purpose with malice.  I believe even in HS all that stuff still matters whether or not the play is a force or not doesn't it?

 

[Replacematt]

40 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

So If he were to have barreled full force into the pitcher at the plate and the pitcher could not field the ball you would call him safe?

 

Was it malicious contact? That's the only question we would need to answer.

[noumpere]

50 minutes ago, ArchAngel72 said:

 

So If he were to have barreled full force into the pitcher at the plate and the pitcher could not field the ball you would call him safe?

 

Pretty sure there are some case plays or interps )involving F2 and a throw from the field) that could lend some clarity. I am traveling and have no access (or desire ) to look them up. 

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, ArchAngel72 said:

I believe even in HS all that stuff still matters whether or not the play is a force or not doesn't it?

A Passed Ball (er, Wild Pitch… the catcher in me hates the term Passed Ball) is never* a Force Out. 

Receiving a (potential) throw from his F2 doesn’t protect a bumbledeedum F1, pout-loping in to cover the plate, from any contact whatsoever; a fielder, on plays like this, is only “protected” from malicious contact. 
 

* - the only exception is a U3K on bases loaded, 2 outs.  

[ArchAngel72]

On 4/3/2025 at 6:55 PM, MadMax said:

A Passed Ball (er, Wild Pitch… the catcher in me hates the term Passed Ball) is never* a Force Out. 

Receiving a (potential) throw from his F2 doesn’t protect a bumbledeedum F1, pout-loping in to cover the plate, from any contact whatsoever; a fielder, on plays like this, is only “protected” from malicious contact. 
 

* - the only exception is a U3K on bases loaded, 2 outs.  

the possibility of malicious contact was my point.  Was it there or was it not there..  😁

[Kali]

Back to Fed rules: coming in standing up means he did not legally slide.  He then contacted a fielder who was in the immediate act of making a play.  That by itself is enough to call the runner out.  That contact is illegal.  The fact that the ball hit the runner on the hip is nothing since it wasn't intentional.  The contact does not have to be malicious to call an out here.  The whole point of the slide rule is to minimize the damage caused by a collision.  That means we want to prevent situations where two players run into each other standing up.

[The Man in Blue]

OK, I'll be that guy . . . 

NFHS

If the pitcher had his glove and outstretched forearm in the runner's path . . . AND DIDN'T HAVE THE BALL . . . sounds like obstruction to me.

Malicious contact is not an out.  

[The Man in Blue]

On 4/3/2025 at 1:35 PM, ArchAngel72 said:

 

So If he were to have barreled full force into the pitcher at the plate and the pitcher could not field the ball you would call him safe?

 

If he touched the plate before being tagged out, yes, I would call him safe.  Then I would eject him.

Watched that one get kicked last night . . . and was shocked nobody argued with it.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Kali said:

Back to Fed rules: coming in standing up means he did not legally slide.  He then contacted a fielder who was in the immediate act of making a play.  That by itself is enough to call the runner out.  That contact is illegal.  The fact that the ball hit the runner on the hip is nothing since it wasn't intentional.  The contact does not have to be malicious to call an out here. 

Cite?

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

OK, I'll be that guy . . . 

NFHS

If the pitcher had his glove and outstretched forearm in the runner's path . . . AND DIDN'T HAVE THE BALL . . . sounds like obstruction to me.

Malicious contact is not an out.  

Agree on the first...but what do you mean malicious contact is not an out?