Need a little clarification

[thumpferee]

I agree with the last two posts as well as many others. The thing I would like to make clear is there are rules which we as officials are responsible to make. As the original poster stated, Little League Rules. If the fielder has the ball, which in his situation seemed clear he did, contact was made because the runner failed to avoid, and knocked the ball out of the fielders hands who had the ball in his possession. In FED, it is within a step if I'm not mistaken. In Little League players must learn how to slide and when they need to slide (or avoid). There is nothing incidental about NOT sliding. SLIDE OR AVOID or be called out. If we all want to get on the same page here, interpret the rules the way they were meant to be interpreted. Incidental contact is where the throw is astray and contact occurs before either has a chance to avoid contact In this thread, the runner had his chance to avoid contact and slide but did not. There is nothing incidental bout that.

[jicecone]

I disagree. Contact is made most of the time, because this game has a 15 inch square, 2-5 inch bag they call a base. And when two human beings, called players, are attempting to be there at the same time, it is usually inevitable that contact will happen.

This has been recognized in the HS's and in some areas a double first base is being used. I am not aware of a "one step rule" however, the fact that contact is made, does NOT imply that someone is not trying to avoid contact, given the criteria that this game is being played under. LL is no exception. Avoiding contact at ALL times in this game is just not humanly possible.

I really don't believe our job is to penalize players for complying with the rules or as others have said many time on this board, "go picking boogers". Trying to split hairs on wether a runner avoided contact or not in this situation, is beyond the call of duty.

[mcrowder]

Avoiding contact at all times may not be possible. But "Avoid contact OR slide" seems pretty easy to follow. If you can't avoid contact, SLIDE. If you made no effort to avoid contact, and you did not slide, you've interfered.

[jicecone]

"Avoiding contact at all times may not be possible. But "Avoid contact OR slide" seems pretty easy to follow. If you can't avoid contact, SLIDE. If you made no effort to avoid contact, and you did not slide, you've interfered"

You DO NOT have to SLIDE,You DO NOT have to SLIDE,You DO NOT have to SLIDE,You DO NOT have to SLIDE.!!!!!!!!

Two bodies meeting at the same spot on the field will inevitably have some contact on a tag play.

Both of these statements are True statements.

If you call anything other than out or safe, than you need, more game experience.

[David B]

Originally posted by thumpferee
I agree with the last two posts as well as many others. The thing I would like to make clear is there are rules which we as officials are responsible to make. As the original poster stated, Little League Rules. If the fielder has the ball, which in his situation seemed clear he did, contact was made because the runner failed to avoid, and knocked the ball out of the fielders hands who had the ball in his possession. In FED, it is within a step if I'm not mistaken. In Little League players must learn how to slide and when they need to slide (or avoid). There is nothing incidental about NOT sliding. SLIDE OR AVOID or be called out. If we all want to get on the same page here, interpret the rules the way they were meant to be interpreted. Incidental contact is where the throw is astray and contact occurs before either has a chance to avoid contact In this thread, the runner had his chance to avoid contact and slide but did not. There is nothing incidental bout that.

I should have stated HS ball. I would think the FPSR would have given that away but I failed to state that.

I found several good case plays in the BRD that pretty much covers much of what we have discussed.

THIS IS HIGH SCHOOL BALL!!

RUMBLE: Umpires should not use the force of the crash as the criterion for judging malicious contact: The severity of the contact is not a gauge for determining malicious contact, because there are times ... when the contact is unavoidable. (News #3, 3/93) {See 275.}

Play 124-312: FED only. R1: The runner tries to score on B1's double. The catcher, seeing the throw from the cutoff man in the outfield is going to be up the line toward third, moves five or six steps up the line and obstructs R1, who maliciously runs into him and manages to score. Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. Though F2 is guilty of obstruction, that infraction is ignored: R1 is out, ejected and his run does not count.


Note 298: On the other hand, the 1995 clarification has been recently unclarified. The Rules Committee is concerned that all collisions are being ruled malicious contact, pointing out that a violent collision may occur and be ruled incidental contact with no penalty to either offense or defense. The umpire should rule on the runner's intent: It's a malicious crash if he uses intentional excessive force or intends to injure the fielder. (Points of Emphasis, 1997 ed) BRD recommends: When the runner has time to get down, and doesn't if the fielder is knocked off his feet, don't worry about intent; call it a malicious crash and eject the runner.


Play 125-312: FED only. R2: The runner tries to score on B1's single to right. The throw causes the catcher to leave the baseline and move two or three steps away from the plate. Gloving the throw, he runs toward the plate to tag the charging runner, who does not slide. After a violent collision, the ball is jarred free, and R2 rolls over to touch home, untagged. Ruling: Regardless of how rough the collision was, it is not malicious contact.

Thanks
David

[jicecone]

Thanks Dave, that is the same source of info (and experience) I was basing my discussion on.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by David B

I should have stated HS ball. I would think the FPSR would have given that away but I failed to state that.

I found several good case plays in the BRD that pretty much covers much of what we have discussed.

THIS IS HIGH SCHOOL BALL!!

RUMBLE: Umpires should not use the force of the crash as the criterion for judging malicious contact: The severity of the contact is not a gauge for determining malicious contact, because there are times ... when the contact is unavoidable. (News #3, 3/93) {See 275.}

Play 124-312: FED only. R1: The runner tries to score on B1's double. The catcher, seeing the throw from the cutoff man in the outfield is going to be up the line toward third, moves five or six steps up the line and obstructs R1, who maliciously runs into him and manages to score. Ruling: The outcome of the play is not relevant. Though F2 is guilty of obstruction, that infraction is ignored: R1 is out, ejected and his run does not count.


Note 298: On the other hand, the 1995 clarification has been recently unclarified. The Rules Committee is concerned that all collisions are being ruled malicious contact, pointing out that a violent collision may occur and be ruled incidental contact with no penalty to either offense or defense. The umpire should rule on the runner's intent: It's a malicious crash if he uses intentional excessive force or intends to injure the fielder. (Points of Emphasis, 1997 ed) BRD recommends: When the runner has time to get down, and doesn't if the fielder is knocked off his feet, don't worry about intent; call it a malicious crash and eject the runner.


Play 125-312: FED only. R2: The runner tries to score on B1's single to right. The throw causes the catcher to leave the baseline and move two or three steps away from the plate. Gloving the throw, he runs toward the plate to tag the charging runner, who does not slide. After a violent collision, the ball is jarred free, and R2 rolls over to touch home, untagged. Ruling: Regardless of how rough the collision was, it is not malicious contact.

Thanks
David

You are right. I was stating Lil League rule interps. You did not state Lil League. I must have combined posts. Sorry. I was thinking Lil League. I definately agree with you and Jice and DTTB that incidental contact is part of the game and must definately play part in making this particular call.

My thinking was with BlueZebra!

[Edited by thumpferee on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 04:30 PM]

[warriordad]

Here is one that resulted in some controversy.

R3 was coming home and the catcher had the ball and good position in the basepath. R3 couldn't reach home on a slide so he stopped in the basepath, raised his hands and allowed the catcher to apply the tag. Third out. No contact was made other than the tag.

The ump ejected R3 for not sliding. Since the team at bat had been playing with eight players, this now meant that they had to forfeit the game (even though they were up 12-0). Even the parents from the other team were upset. They were smart enough to realize that R3 was only trying to avoid a collision that could have resulted in injury to their player. Since R3 was ejected anyway, the parents felt that the umpire's call was actually placing their catcher at greater risk. If R3 is going to be ejected no matter what he does, there is no longer an incentive for avoiding a collision.

The league officials later admitted the call was wrong and promised to meet with the umpire to avoid a similar situation in the future.