No slide after passed ball

[Tborze]

8 hours ago, Replacematt said:

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

 

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

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]

4 hours ago, Tborze said:

 

 

That doesn't answer the question.

Stating that there is not an out on MC if the runner has scored is not the same as saying there is an out if the runner has not scored. The only out he affirmatively declares is the tag out, and the original comment I questioned means that there is no out on MC, as it is worded.

[The Man in Blue]

Yes, I was unclear on that.

There is a misperception that the runner is always out.  

[Tborze]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Yes, I was unclear on that.

There is a misperception that the runner is always out.  

This is what I assumed. 

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, Tborze said:

This is what I assumed. 

I did, too, but with something as complex and such...being imprecise can lead to us talking past each other, others being confused as to what is accurate, or a mistaken belief that he was incorrect in his understanding. 

[Kali]

On 4/17/2025 at 7:39 PM, Replacematt said:

Cite?

Velho already cited the rule that applies here.  8-4-2b

[Kali]

On 4/17/2025 at 6:32 PM, 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.

This actually brings up an interesting and off-topic point.  Unlike the MLB rules, Fed does not protect the fielder from an obstruction call when they are in the act of fielding a ball.  The fielder must have possession to block.  But what if the runner prevented the fielder from gaining possession by doing something unexpected.

Think of this play, a BR running to 1st barely beats the throw, but instead of simply over-running the base, decides to try to make a turn toward 2nd and collides with the 1st baseman who then is unable to make the catch.  Would we call this obstruction?  The 1st baseman didn't have the ball after all, but it was a close play and he expected the BR would simply go straight over 1st base and he wasn't blocking that path in any way.  I can't cite a rule here but would never call that obstruction.

So back to the play at hand, the pitcher reaching out for the toss from the catcher is prevented from catching the ball because the runner failed to perform a legal slide.  Not obstruction.  It is a violation of the slide rule.  We need to look and see who was doing what they were suppose to do and who was not.

[MadMax]

19 hours ago, Kali said:

So back to the play at hand, the pitcher reaching out for the toss from the catcher is prevented from catching the ball because the runner failed to perform a legal slide.  Not obstruction.  It is a violation of the slide rule. 

You’re still stuck on this? 🙄 

R3 only, less than 2 outs. Smash down the line, fielded by F5. R3 blitzes for home, knowing that the ball passed by him, but coached that if he gets down the line fast & far enough, he’ll force the fielder – if he did field it – to ignore him and throw to 1B. However, F5’s momentum takes him into Foul territory, and he plants and throws towards the plate. F2 is not obstructing the plate, but extends his mitt so as to try and meet the thrown ball and the R3’s body at the same vertex… 

FREEZE IT! 🥶 

Now, I’ll preface this, if the R3 “trucks” the F2, and targets / seeks out contact with him (his body, esp.), we’ve got INT (and likely MC). That is not happening in this example play. Instead, there are three options, and all should be interpreted the same way: 

1. Thrown ball hits R3 in back / back-of-shoulder / back-of-arm / back-of-leg, just as R3 arrives at the catcher’s mitt. R3 crosses and touches plate running (on his feet). 
2. Thrown ball is headed at the (extended) catcher’s mitt, which is about-to-and-will make contact with the R3’s hip. Hip makes contact with mitt first, ball next, and deflects away. No catch. R3 crosses and touches plate running (on his feet). 
3. Thrown ball arrives at catcher’s extended mitt, enters it, and then is knocked free as the tag is attempted (again, with no intentional act to do so by the R3). Ball pops free, and ends up on the ground. R3 crosses and touches plate running (on his feet). 

By the way I’m reading you, you’re telling us that there are “slide rule violations”?? 

Uh, no. All 3 should be adjudged as “Safe / That’s Nothing”. Because as soon as that’s accepted – especially Options #2 and #3 – the bumbledeedum F1 covering the plate for a throw from his F2 – who had to track down the Wild Pitch he threw!!! – play becomes incredibly easy to adjudge… 

Safe. That’s Nothing. 

[Replacematt]

20 hours ago, Kali said:

Velho already cited the rule that applies here.  8-4-2b

As we clarified, no, it does not apply.

[Replacematt]

19 hours ago, Kali said:

This actually brings up an interesting and off-topic point.  Unlike the MLB rules, Fed does not protect the fielder from an obstruction call when they are in the act of fielding a ball.  The fielder must have possession to block.  But what if the runner prevented the fielder from gaining possession by doing something unexpected.

Think of this play, a BR running to 1st barely beats the throw, but instead of simply over-running the base, decides to try to make a turn toward 2nd and collides with the 1st baseman who then is unable to make the catch.  Would we call this obstruction?  The 1st baseman didn't have the ball after all, but it was a close play and he expected the BR would simply go straight over 1st base and he wasn't blocking that path in any way.  I can't cite a rule here but would never call that obstruction.

So back to the play at hand, the pitcher reaching out for the toss from the catcher is prevented from catching the ball because the runner failed to perform a legal slide.  Not obstruction.  It is a violation of the slide rule.  We need to look and see who was doing what they were suppose to do and who was not.

Those are certainly all obstruction. You CAN cite the rule...you just did, and you're just ignoring it. 

[Kali]

I guess I understand why you don't want this rule to apply but 8-4-2b states that:

Any runner is out when the runner ... does not legally slide and causes illegal contact ... of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play.

I fail to see why this doesn't apply to the original post situation or any of MadMaxes scenarios.  Are you stuck on the idea that there needs to be something other than simple contact to make this illegal contact?  The whole point of the slide rule is that contact by the runner with a fielder during a play at a base or plate is illegal if the runner isn't legally sliding.

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Kali said:

I guess I understand why you don't want this rule to apply but 8-4-2b states that:

Any runner is out when the runner ... does not legally slide and causes illegal contact ... of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play.

I fail to see why this doesn't apply to the original post situation or any of MadMaxes scenarios.  Are you stuck on the idea that there needs to be something other than simple contact to make this illegal contact?  The whole point of the slide rule is that contact by the runner with a fielder during a play at a base or plate is illegal if the runner isn't legally sliding.

It doesn't apply because it doesn't apply, and you are incorrect about the point of the slide rule.

If it meant what you say it did, there would be no need for the word "illegal" before contact, since ALL contact would be illegal. There are two types of illegal contact--malicious contact, and those resulting from an illegal slide. 

So let's break this down--there are two elements needed for a violation: lack of a legal slide, and illegal contact. So what defines this as illegal contact?

It's really amusing and sad that you can quote the language of two rules, of which it clearly shows that the defense is obstructing and the offense is not committing any violation, and somehow contort it into the opposite.

[Kali]

I'm happy you're amused and sorry you're sad but the rule says "does not legally slide" for a reason.  If they meant to say, slides illegally, they would have said that.  When the runner comes in standing up, they did not legally slide.  Runners are not required to slide at all, but if they don't, they better not contact a fielder or alter the play.

You might want to look at the Case Book for 8.4.2 Situation Y for instruction.  The runner standing up is called for interference in a situation where, had he been legally sliding, he would not have been.  There is no contact in this example but it demonstrates that standing up and illegally sliding are treated as the same thing.

[Replacematt]

33 minutes ago, Kali said:

I'm happy you're amused and sorry you're sad but the rule says "does not legally slide" for a reason.  If they meant to say, slides illegally, they would have said that.  When the runner comes in standing up, they did not legally slide.  Runners are not required to slide at all, but if they don't, they better not contact a fielder or alter the play.

You might want to look at the Case Book for 8.4.2 Situation Y for instruction.  The runner standing up is called for interference in a situation where, had he been legally sliding, he would not have been.  There is no contact in this example but it demonstrates that standing up and illegally sliding are treated as the same thing.

You really don't get how sentences work, do you?

Yes, it says does not legally slide. That in itself is not illegal, hence the second clause, "and causes illegal contact." A runner does not have to slide. A runner doesn't even have to legally slide. They just can't cause illegal contact. 

You still have yet to address the point that there is nothing in this rule that makes all contact illegal. It does not say failure to slide resulting in contact is illegal.

Feel free to post the case play. Actually, don't, BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELEVANT. 8.4.2.Y is about a force play, not a non-force play. It is a case play about the third clause of the sentence which is exclusive to force plays, not the second.