Slide or avoid contact in lower-level baseball leagues

[Central Cal Umpire]

In an Under 10 Cal Ripken league with a typical slide or avoid contact rule, there was a runner (R2) on second base. A ground ball was hit back to the pitcher, who threw to first, where the first baseman dropped the ball. The batter/runner (B1) reached safely. R2 then attempted to reach third base. R2 was a heavyset kid, not a fast runner. First baseman threw to third ahead of R2 and 3B tags R2, who did not slide. R2 knocks over the third baseman who still records the tag out. B1 attempts to reach second base and reaches safely. The coach of the team on the field demands B1 be called out for interference by R2 because R2 did not slide or avoid contact, thereby preventing the third baseman from throwing to second ahead of B1. The umpire ruled interference technically did occur, but said the out applies only to R2, who was already out on 3B's tag. B1 remained at second base.

If the umpire ruled interference did occur, shouldn't he have given the defense the option of the out on interference rather than the tag out, then sent B1 back to first base?

Full disclosure. I was the umpire, and I think I blew the call.

[MadMax]

From the read, R2 merely didn't slide. He's under no obligation to slide, since it is not a force out. On a tag attempt – which that was – he's only obligated to not intentionally induce contact other than with a legal slide. So he can't go in and tackle / wrap-up the fielder, he can't go in and try to slap or elbow-knock the ball out... If he's simply a big 10-year old, awkward as can be, and bumbles on in to a fielder 2/3rds the size of him... unless it was a Force play, you really can't call INT on this. 

It sucks, but perhaps the fielder could/should make a more nimble tag? 

The reason we can't apply this "Must Slide, Must Avoid Contact" rule in a widespread, all-points of the field, whitewashed manner is demonstrated in a rundown. Are we to require a Runner to slide – in the middle of the basepaths – to avoid an impending tag? No, that's silly. 

1 hour ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

The umpire ruled interference technically did occur, but said the out applies only to R2,

No, you ruled correctly, but you "technically" explained / justified it incorrectly. The "Must Slide, Avoid Contact" rule is primarily a Force out play rule, that typically gets expanded and scrutinized for a play at the plate so as to penalize a Runner for "blowing up" a catcher. However, if a catcher is standing at (or on) the plate, while the ball is out in the outfield, for example, and a Runner comes in, and runs thru and touches the plate (in an awkward manner), and knocks shoulders with the catcher... are we to call that Runner out for failure to avoid contact? 

No, that'd be absurd. 

[Velho]

To add to @MadMax, the LL Rule & Comment may be helpful. From the RIM:

 

7.08 - Any runner is out when: (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:

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

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

2. 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. ATTEMPT to get around the fielder OR.

3. RETREAT to the previous base OR

4. GIVE THEMSELVES UP

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

[Velho]

3 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

Full disclosure. I was the umpire, and I think I blew the call.

This is not pushing back on you getting better (kudos for that, please keep coming around) but generally speaking, IMO, the only call that can be "blown" in a 10U game is the snack shack not being open. 

[Slippery Fish]

I think we're conflating two different rules. (i.e. slide or avoid contact & retired runner interference)

The exact rules will vary from league to league, so YMMV. To add to Velho's quote from LL, I've quoted the USSSA rulebook below.

As much as I hate to disagree with Max, I think the thing to note is that both the LL and the USSSA "slide or avoid contact" rule applies exclusively to tag plays. In the OP, it sounds like there's a decent chance that R2 violated this rule. However, you'd have to judge how immanent the tag play was. That being said, even if you judge that he violated the rule, the penalty is simply that he is called out, which already happened with the valid tag.

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

The reason we can't apply this "Must Slide, Must Avoid Contact" rule in a widespread, all-points of the field, whitewashed manner is demonstrated in a rundown. Are we to require a Runner to slide – in the middle of the basepaths – to avoid an impending tag? No, that's silly.

No, we wouldn't require him to slide (he probably doesn't have enough speed to slide), but we will require him to avoid immanent/evident contact (see LL's caveats above). Ironically enough, the only time I have ever called an out under this rule was in a rundown. Defense had R3 dead to rights in front of the plate, and R3 ran directly into the catcher causing him to drop the ball. I think "slide or avoid contact" is low and reasonable bar, and if R3 had done literally anything other than run right through the catcher's chest, he wouldn't have violated this rule.

Regarding potential interference, I don't think that has anything to do with the "slide or avoid contact" rule, but is a question of general retired runner interference. Given the context, I don't think it's a necessary call in the OP, but I think it's a separate consideration from whether R2 successfully "slid or avoided contact".

[Coach Carl]

Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken is a "use OBR unless otherwise stated" rulebook.  OBR doesn't cover a collision like this:  it is at a base other than home and it doesn't involve a force play on another runner.

As near as I can tell from perusing their website, Cal Ripken addresses this in their "Contact Rule":

Babe Ruth Baseball and Cal Ripken Baseball (All Divisions) – Contact Rule – If a runner attempting to reach home plate or another base intentionally and maliciously runs into a defensive player in the area of home plate or a base, he will be called out and ejected from the game.

So, in the OP, Central Cal Umpire would have had to judge that the runners actions were intentional and malicious and then call the runner out and eject him (absent a local rule to the contrary).  Based on his description, I don't think the runners actions were either intentional or malicious but he'd have to answer that question himself.   Since the runner was tagged, either way, he is out.

Then, as Slippery Fish notes, if his further actions hinder the fielder in trying to get the Batter-Runner at second base we have the possibility of interference.  If the retired runner, after knocking down the fielder, gets out of his way and doesn't further hinder him, then I don't see how you can call interference.  However, if they are laying in a pile and the retired runner is on top of the fielder you may have something to consider.   Also, since he is no longer a runner, intent is not required.

 

 

[Coach Carl]

8 hours ago, Central Cal Umpire said:

If the umpire ruled interference did occur, shouldn't he have given the defense the option of the out on interference rather than the tag out, then sent B1 back to first base?

And I forgot to mention, R2 was not out for interference.  He was out for violating the contact rule OR for getting tagged (based on your judgement) and that is YOUR judgement, not an option given to the defense.

As a side note, the only time the defense has options is when they are required to appeal to get a ruling on a violation, such as batting out of turn.  And in that case, their option is between appealing and taking the decision or not appealing and allowing the play to stand.  They can't appeal and then ask for options.  

 

[jimurrayalterego]

18 minutes ago, Coach Carl said:

Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken is a "use OBR unless otherwise stated" rulebook.  OBR doesn't cover a collision like this:  it is at a base other than home and it doesn't involve a force play on another runner.

 

 

 

OBR doesn't, as you say. The Manny Machado crash was legal until the hug. Your analysis seems on point. Why effin orgs think they are OBR with mods without understanding OBR I don't know. Well, maybe I do know.

[Central Cal Umpire]

Just some additional context. The throw to third base was clearly ahead of R2, but close enough that R2 didn't have time to slide. Contact was basically a result of him trying to reach third base with 3B standing over the bag, but not in front. Nothing malicious on R2's part and R2's contact with 3B was certainly not after the out was recorded - contact amounted to the tag out. R2 simply outweighed 3B. A same sized kid probably wouldn't have been knocked over, as R2's speed wasn't great.

All that said, sounds like the call was correct, leaving B1 at second base was correct, the dialogue that included "technical interference" was completely off and better left unsaid under similar circumstances in the future.

[Velho]

All good @Central Cal Umpire. Keep working.

[MadMax]

17 hours ago, Slippery Fish said:

As much as I hate to disagree with Max, I think the thing to note is that both the LL and the USSSA "slide or avoid contact" rule applies exclusively to tag plays. In the OP, it sounds like there's a decent chance that R2 violated this rule.

The problem here, SF, is this creates a very hazy, murky realm, of “kids being kids”, and the naivety, awkwardness, and uncoordinated immaturity that entails. We actually have similar occurrences in “old timer” baseball – 55+. Regression in its visible definition. 

A tag is contact. To create a rule that stipulates that Runners must “avoid (all) contact” and penalizes “violations” unilaterally opens Pandora’s box. What about OBS? What if a fielder blocks off the base completely, and the Runner makes contact with the fielder so as to get to the base? Does he get called Out for simply making contact? Does he get called Out for being “out of the basepath” because he’s been conditioned – by his or his teammates being called Out for “contact” before – to avoid contact (and you know there are amateur umpires who’ve called this before)? 

And what of the fielder? If the Runners are to “avoid contact”, then why aren’t fielders? What prevents them from slapping purposeless (eg. Pickoff attempt) or hard tags on Runners? We’re supposed to avoid contact, right? 

We can’t (continue to) bubble-wrap kids. 

[Slippery Fish]

I guess I just don't see the same slippery slope.

I will grant, after re-reading the OP and Central Cal Ump's additional explanation, I was overzealous to suggest that R2 had likely violated a "must slide or avoid contact" rule (hereafter abbreviated as MSAC). A runner stopping at the base where the fielder is on top of the base with the ball, especially at the U10 level (I've fully bought into your admonitions to consider the context), doesn't sound like a violation.

However, while different, I think all of the rules cited above are (appropriately) narrowly tailored to mitigate unintended consequences. I'm guessing the situation the rule writers had at the forefront of their minds is plays at the plate, which has received scrutiny at all levels.

The specific rules in question don't ban contact wholesale, they penalize not sliding or attempting to avoid full on contact under very specific circumstances. LL says explicitly, and I would argue that USSSA says implicitly, that the fielder must be waiting with the ball, ready to make the tag. Cal Ripken requires you to be near a base too! This means that non-malicious contact occurring as a result of OBS, or the catcher standing on the plate without the ball, or the ball arriving shorty before the runner, or the fielder doing something out of the ordinary, isn't penalized under MSAC.

Now, if I'm misunderstanding you and you're taking issue with haphazard attempts to regulate contact more generally, then I'm closer to seeing your point.