No slide

[LMSANS]

I had this happen during a LL-JR game:

bases loaded, 1 out, ground ball to F6 who bobbles and then throws home R3 has plenty of opportunity to slide or avoid F2, but he runs into him. R2 comes home on the overthrow.

I call R3 out for failure to slide/avoid and allow R2 to score. My partner feels that it should have been a dead ball when R3 ran into F2 and R2 returned to 3B. There was definitely no MC on the play.

Did I get it right?

[mstaylor]

Well, you facts don't match the play. You say you called the runner out but there was no MC. By what rule did you call him out? If you have interference, it's probably MC also, but maybe not. But either way, your partner is right, it's dead TOI, runner back to last base legally touched TOI. If you aren't ruling some type of interference then you can't get the out.

[LMSANS]

If I understand you, failure to slide/avoid is interference? If that's the case, then I see where I went wrong.

[Mr Umpire]

If I understand you, failure to slide/avoid is interference? If that's the case, then I see where I went wrong.

If the league has an "Avoid Contact" rule (not "Slide" rule), then any contact judged to violate this rule is considered INT. Once INT is called, that runner causing it is out and no other runners can advance beyond their last legally obtained base. If R2 has not reached 3B at the time of contact, he goes back to 2B. If malicious, then the player is ejected.

[PeteBooth]

I had this happen during a LL-JR game:

bases loaded, 1 out, ground ball to F6 who bobbles and then throws home R3 has plenty of opportunity to slide or avoid F2, but he runs into him. R2 comes home on the overthrow.

I call R3 out for failure to slide/avoid and allow R2 to score. My partner feels that it should have been a dead ball when R3 ran into F2 and R2 returned to 3B. There was definitely no MC on the play.

Did I get it right?

You said LL-JR game:

LL has no such animal as a MC rule

Here is the applicable LL rule

LL rule 7.08(a-3) A runner must slide or attempt to avoid a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to tag the runner.

Notice 2 criteria MUST be present for LL rule 7.08(a-3) to be applicable

Fielder MUST have ball AND also Waiting to make a tag

Therefore, in order to rule properly we need to know if F2 had actual possession of the ball AND Waiting for a tag.

If F2 had both criteria met, then it's Interference R3 out other runners return to TOI bases.

if F2 did not have BOTH criteria met then you made the incorrect call as the play stands and after playing action ends you could EJ the runner.

For a safety conscious league like LL one would think they would adopt an MC rule but so far they have not.

Pete Booth

[PeteBooth]

If the league has an "Avoid Contact" rule (not "Slide" rule), then any contact judged to violate this rule is considered INT. Once INT is called, that runner causing it is out and no other runners can advance beyond their last legally obtained base. If R2 has not reached 3B at the time of contact, he goes back to 2B. If malicious, then the player is ejected.

The key words in this OP are LL Junior game

If you are a chartered member of LL then one MUST follow their rules. You cannot or I should said are not supposed to "make up your own house rules"

The applicable rule in this OP is LL rule 7.08(a-3) plain and simple

F2 needs to have actual possession of the ball AND be waiting to make a tag. If F2 did not meet both criteria, then no penalty on the play other then an ejection at the end of playing action IF the contact was judged malicious by the umpire.

If F2 had both criteria met then interference should have been called. R3 out other runners return to their TOI bases.

In LL there is NO MC rule or Avoid contact rule as you put it.

Pete Booth

[mstaylor]

You said the runner had plenty of time to avoid but hit him anyway. LL requires the fielder to have the ball or it is obstruction. Since he didn't have the ball he can't be in the way. The runner still can't just roll him, which is what sounds like happened here. LL doesn't have a MC rule as Pete says but you do have unsportmanlike and that is what this was. You also have interference rules that won't allow the runners to cause the fielders not to be able to make the play.

[someoneinca]

I had this happen during a LL-JR game:

bases loaded, 1 out, ground ball to F6 who bobbles and then throws home R3 has plenty of opportunity to slide or avoid F2, but he runs into him. R2 comes home on the overthrow.

I call R3 out for failure to slide/avoid and allow R2 to score. My partner feels that it should have been a dead ball when R3 ran into F2 and R2 returned to 3B. There was definitely no MC on the play.

Did I get it right?

This is either obstruction or a train wreck depending on what happened.

Was the catcher out of the way originally and pulled into the path of the runner when he tried to field the throw? If so then it is a train wreck and I've got nothing.

If the catcher just stood there waiting for the throw and was in the runner's way, then it is obstruction.

[LMSANS]

The ball was in flight.

F2 was on the first base side of the plate, leaving at least 2/3 of the plate clear.

The runner was ahead of the ball. The runner never prepared himself for contact as is usually used to determine MC. (and I got it - no MC in LL-JR)

[someoneinca]

The ball was in flight.

F2 was on the first base side of the plate, leaving at least 2/3 of the plate clear.

The runner was ahead of the ball. The runner never prepared himself for contact as is usually used to determine MC. (and I got it - no MC in LL-JR)

I would call obstruction since the catcher did not leave the entire plate clear for the runner - which he is obligated to do unless he has the ball in his glove. Since the runner never braced himself, I would not eject for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[LMSANS]

100% of the base must be clear?

I have to disagree there. Is there a specific place in the rules for that interp?

[someoneinca]

100% of the base must be clear?

I have to disagree there. Is there a specific place in the rules for that interp?

The definition of obstruction in the rule book says:

"NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, baseline, or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball."

The runner has the full right to the base and the baseline if the fielder does not have the ball

[LMSANS]

The definition of obstruction in the rule book says:

"NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, baseline, or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball."

The runner has the full right to the base and the baseline if the fielder does not have the ball

I read that as blocking 100%, not 33%.

[someoneinca]

A similar situation came up in a group that I am part of the other day. A WR instructor said that the runner has the right to 100% of the plate when the defense does not have possession of the ball and to call obstruction if they partly block the plate.

The point is that the runner has the right to the baseline when the defense does not have the ball in their possession or are not fielding a batted ball.

From the Instructors Comments in the RIM:

⇒ It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.

⇒ Most actions related to obstruction concern who has the right-of-way. The defense has the right to the baseline on a batted ball or when he/she already has the ball in his/her possession. The offense has the right to the baseline in all other occasions, including on a thrown ball.

Edited April 29, 2009 by someoneinca
formatting

[LMSANS]

A similar situation came up in a group that I am part of the other day. A WR instructor said that the runner has the right to 100% of the plate when the defense does not have possession of the ball and to call obstruction if they partly block the plate.

The point is that the runner has the right to the baseline when the defense does not have the ball in their possession or are not fielding a batted ball.

From the Instructors Comments in the RIM:

In this case, F2 was standing on the 1B side of home plate, with one foot on that side of the plate. This is the reason I took action against the runner (and got no argument from the coach). He had a clear path to slide or even avoid contact, but for whatever reason, ran into F2.

[Frank Rizzo]

If the rule states that the catcher must have possesion of the ball, then it is obstruction whether he is fielding a thrown ball or not.

This is how we call it in Fed. OBR is different.

[LMSANS]

If the rule states that the catcher must have possesion of the ball, then it is obstruction whether he is fielding a thrown ball or not.

This is how we call it in Fed. OBR is different.

OK, I'll bite...the contact happens after R3 touches the plate, where are you protecting him to?:banghead:

[PeteBooth]

If the rule states that the catcher must have possesion of the ball, then it is obstruction whether he is fielding a thrown ball or not.

This is how we call it in Fed.

No it isn't

From the OP

F2 was on the first base side of the plate, leaving at least 2/3 of the plate clear.

In FED as long as the runner has ACCESS to the base it is not OBS. There is a Case play on this as well.

Pete Booth