Slide or Attempt to Avoid Tag Rule

[Jboval]

I have been looking, but cannot find where I originally read the version I am thinking about:

Batter must slide or attempt to avoid tag....

We all know that rule, but I swear that somewhere in some rule set I have seen a line added that states that jumping over or diving over the player is not to be considered an attempt to avoid.

Can you guys help me out with this?

Thanks!

[mstaylor]

That would be the Fed book. You may only jump over if the fielder is prone on the ground.

[softballcoach]

Had this happen in a HS game YEARS ago when I was playing. Our BR was running from 1 to 2 and hurdled over the F4, umpire rang him up for it. I want to say he said he left the baseline.

[widac]

I have been looking, but cannot find where I originally read the version I am thinking about:

Batter must slide or attempt to avoid tag....

We all know that rule, but I swear that somewhere in some rule set I have seen a line added that states that jumping over or diving over the player is not to be considered an attempt to avoid.

Can you guys help me out with this?

Thanks!

Fed 8-4-2b2 states in part that "Jumping, hurdling and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal."

[treedog24]

LL Baseball has a video that I just was looking at that describe their rule and it in line with FED.

[mstaylor]

I would be interested in seeing that because that is contrary to what Andy taught in his clinics. He said it was OK unless the runner made contact, then it likely to be considered unsportman like.

[willv28]

I would be interested in seeing that because that is contrary to what Andy taught in his clinics. He said it was OK unless the runner made contact, then it likely to be considered unsportman like.

For that LL video, I think they're talking about this one video J on this page if you can see it. Not best production but doesn't cover the leaping/jumping angle. The example shows R1, ball is batted to F4, F4 has the ball, and R1 runs into him and the ball comes loose and he's ruled out. The second example shows what happens when the fielder doesn't have the ball. In the example it's a runner coming to score and F2 doesn't have the ball, and they "collide" and it's obstruction.

http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/rules/erules2009.htm

[willv28]

We actually had this come up in a LL minor's game yesterday. I was just watching, pretty sure I would've called the out not only for not attempting to "slide or get around" but for the malicious contact. Don't recall the setup, I think it was R2 and R3, I was talking to people the whole game. On a batted ball a runner was going to the plate. F2 is standing on the plate, receives the ball as the runner is less than a stride from the plate. The runner goes straight through F2 both runner and F2 standing upright, slight push from runner and F2 falls to the ground and ball comes out. Runner was called out first because the tag beat him, then safe when it came out.

Do you think having a ball a second or less is enough to say the defender is waiting for a tag and making them have to avoid a tag or would you consider it a train wreck? He'd be out either way for the contact and the nature of it, if I was doing it, but disregard the severity of the contact. Consider it for both minors and majors.

[BrianC14]

Runner was called out first because the tag beat him, then safe when it came out.

'scuse me? :nod:

[willv28]

'scuse me?

Oh...be quiet you...you know what I mean...

Edited May 8, 2009 by willv28

[Jboval]

That runner has to slide or attempt to avoid the tag per LL rules. He is out for not doing so according to sitch in OP. Also, if in the umpire's judgement, the 'little push' was malicious, then eject R3. If F2 is standing 'astride' the plate with access available to the R3 between his legs, then that is acceptable, and I have no problem with it even if he does not have the ball. If F2 is standing and blocking the front portion of the plate (as they usually do in this situation), but R3 has partial access to the rear of the plate, then that is all that is required, again, even if he does not have the ball. Nowhere in the rule does it say that they have to give Runner 100% access, or that he has to have access as he is running upright.

The only way I would penalize the D on Obstruction would be if the player was up the line, blocking the base path, without the ball in flight to his immediate location, or if he was completely blocking the plate/bad with a leg and not there as a result of the throw 'taking him there'.

In other words, if the fielder is where he is as a result of moving to the ball to field the throw, then it is probably close enough for him to be there legally. If he is in a position to make the play, and is hoping that the throw comes to him, then he has no business being there yet. That's just IMHO.

[willv28]

Yeah, that's what I believed as well. Also, remember the catcher was 8 years old and I think smaller then the plate, lol.

[mstaylor]

If he doesn't have the ball is isn't in the act of catching it then it's obstruction, period. Now, for it to be obstruction, there has to be some type of play that creates a problem.

For instance:

The F2 is standing in front of the plate without the ball and the only way the runner is going to be able to tag the base is to run into the catcher, stop and touch the base, slide or go around him and go back. Making him slide to get to the base is putting in unnecessary harm. The other three are forms of obstruction. If any of these things happen and the runner misses the plate because of it, are you going to call him out on appeal?

[Jboval]

If he has to slide to touch the base because the catcher is there without the ball, but has access to the plate, then yes, I will call him out on appeal if he misses the plate.

If the catcher is standing on the far side of the plate, but in line with the runners path, forcing the runner to slow down and tag the base, and he misses it, then yes, I will call him out on appeal.

In no way have I ever thought that forcing a runner to slide is placing him in harms way, and if he has the ability to slide and touch the base cleanly, then I feel that he has been given access to the bag/plate fairly.

The only situation I would consider obstruction in your description as I understand it would be if he is forced to go around the catcher and go back to touch the plate.. in that case, obstruction.

[willv28]

He definitely had the ability to touch the plate if he slid. The real issue hasn't been the actual play. There's been some controversy developing. Our "official district umpires" such as myself are no long to do minor games unless the not only correct this rule but stop using made up rules. Our cheif doesn't want us responsible for having to know them and wants us ready for the tournament, though doing these games did nothing to complicate that. We tried to provide them with real umpires so both coaches and players can learn the rules they need to know for now and so they don't have to wait to know them in the majors, but obviously they're not interested and will continue to hold the players back.

[mstaylor]

Sliding causes more injuries than any other act on a baseball field. I'm not saying that making him slide is obstruction but it is dangerous. But if he is in the line and causes him to chacge direction, slow down or have to return to tag, these are all acts of obstruction. It's still not obstruction until the act creates a problem for the runner to get the base.

Depending on the rule set as to how particular in the call. The problem with obstruction and certain types of interference is they don't call correctly or often enough. LL, NCAA and Fed have all changed to make it harder to impossible to not call and still many umpires will pass because they either don't understand it or don't want to make waves.