Had a situation in game today where R3 and ball is overthrown. R3 comes to the plate and throw from F5 and R3 arrive almost simultaneously at the plate.

R3 runs into the F2 who is standing on the plate and dislodges the ball. A hard head first type of slide even though he never really hit the dirt, but there was no malicious contact (he didn't throw an elbow or extend his arms and push F2) I really think he wasn't expecting a throw and then realized at the last minute when the batter was hollering "get down get down".

Coach wants malicous contact but his comment that throws me was "the runner has to slide"

Of course (according to him) he has had this called two or three times already this year and he wants to know why?

I explain to him that the runner NEVER has to slide but if he does it must be legal. The runner has a right to make it to the plate and he did nothing that showed me intent to make it malicious.

Well the coach later is also complaining about the FPSR because the runner slides through the base.

Of course with no contact or altering of the play we have nothing, but according to him "this has been called all year on us."

So I promised him I'd send him the rule interpretations this week. I have all I need for the FPSR, but am looking for something on the malicious contact.

I looked through my FED interpretations and not much there, and case book also.

I couldn't find anything on the threads here (search doesn't work)

We know what malicious contact is, but I need a little help on the interpretation when its a bang bang play.

I didn't even want to get into a discussion about obstruction possibilities since F2 was on the plate.

Any ideas I'd appreciate.

Thanks
David

We use OBR for our state high school, Babe Ruth... (Massachusetts).
In our state, we have a slide or avoid on all close plays...period! If the catcher is legally in the base path (has or receiving the ball) then the runner MUST slide or he is out! I don't know if that is the dame in all states or levels, but I am told they even do this at the NCAA level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
It seems to me you explained youself(and the rules) rather well. Is this guy really that "dim"? Good job, imho.....

Ummm, no.

Massachuetts HS plays OBR with the NCAA contact rule.

The rule is NOT, NOT, NOT a must slide rule. It is a rule that says that the runner must slide or attempt to avoid contact. If the runner goes in standing up and there is no contact, the play is legal. Period. If the catcher moves into the runner and there is contact, it is legal. Period.

Really? That has not been made clear at all! I'll have to go over this with our board or instructors...I must have missed that night in class. I have the paperwork on it (separate from the book of course). Thanks again for helping me out. Which board are you with Rich?

Your board and/or instructors are wrong. I no longer live in Massachusetts, but if you want a reference to the actual rules you could take a look at the MIAA web page and look at tournament rules. There it SPECIFICALLY says that the NCAA rules regarding contact are to be used. You've already admitted in your original message that you don't know this rule (but you've HEARD what it says, right?).

There is no must slide rule in FED or NCAA. There is what is called a force play slide rule but that defines what is a legal slide if a runner chooses to slide.

Hearing something from instructors or board members means nothing to me. Not all instructors or board members are competent umpires or competent instructors -- many of these positions are political in nature and that is certainly true in a state where patronage is virtually an art form.

Added:

At first I thought you were being a bit sarcastic, to be honest, but then I read a message by you in another thread.

I used to umpire in Massachusetts. I've umpired HS baseball in 5 other states as well. There are many myths out there that are advanced, unfortunately, by umpires who are not quite educated as they should be. Then coaches take these umpires' knowledge for granted and this just perpetuates these myths.

A must-slide rule is one of these myths. You NEVER have to slide. You have to avoid contact, if possible.

Once, in Massachusetts, I saw a varsity umpire call out a runner who got around a swipe tag at home plate because "the runner must slide." This had to be the worst call I have ever seen.

I'm not picking on Massachusetts. I had a varsity head coach in Wisconsin tell me on Monday that a JV umpire called runners out for sliding head first when advancing into a base and said it was a new WIAA rule. Well, it's a Little League rule for 12-year-olds and younger, so it's a rule SOMEWHERE.

I'm just saying that you can only count on yourself to become as educated as possible and KNOW COLD the rules and interpretations for the games you're working.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Apr 18th, 2004 at 08:24 PM]

NO, I was certainly not being sarcastic. I truly appreciate all the help I can get at this point. As you can see, I need it! LOL
Before I get my instructors in bind, I should check this out more myself. Perhaps it is ME that has it wrong or misread it...not them.
I can remember a couple of plays several years ago when son was playing Babe Ruth or Legion Ball and the other teams players RAN into our catcher twice and knocked him down or sent him flying and the runner was not called out. I don't know what the rule was then (5 years ago or more) but I did not think the collision was something they would allow.

Well that depends on the reason the collision took place. At least in FED and NCAA Rules it is. But the Legion ball I have done in the past, used FED Rules. But that is not the case all around the country.

Peace

I remember a time when Babe Ruth rules did not prohibit running into the catcher maliciously. In fact, I petitioned Babe Ruth to make a change, along with several videos fo bad collisions. The rule was changed to prohibit malicious contact (umpire judgement). But there has never been a must slide rule in Babe Ruth, or anywhere else I know of, except Rec leagues who make up their own special rules.

R3 runs into the F2 who is standing on the plate and dislodges the ball. A hard head first type of slide even though he never really hit the dirt, but there was no malicious contact (he didn't throw an elbow or extend his arms and push F2) I really think he wasn't expecting a throw and then realized at the last minute when the batter was hollering "get down get down".

You're contradicting yourself. R3 runs into F2. R3 makes a hard head first slide, but doesn't hit the dirt. How can anyone make a head first slide WITHOUT getting down?

If R3 ran into F2, without making malicious contact, he's out for not sliding or avoiding if F2 has the ball. If malicious, out AND ejected.

It was bang bang. The ball arrives F2 reaches up to his left and grabs ball with glove and runner ducks into his tag on the right side of his body.

Force of the attempted slide knocks the ball loose.

F2 is knocked back but never leaves his feet.

There was no doubt in my mind the play was not malicious, what I was looking for was some application from the Case Book or etc., to back it up.

We all know the player does not have to slide. But, what are the responsibilities for the runner when F2 is receiving the ball and R3 really has no place to go, and the play is going to be bang bang.

I know in NCAA they clarified this last year, but FED I don't think has made any kind of clarification.

Thanks for any help

David

Due to having two sons, both catchers, I feel an authority on malicious contact, ie I know it when I see it. If you are convinced that the contact was not malicious then it's your judgement. If the contact was not malicious, and the ball comes loose, then you have nothing. A head first slide is legal, although I would not advise anyone to slide head first into a catcher. A head first dive (you said he was not really sliding) at some portion of the plate uncovered is possible. Even if the catcher is standing on the plate, some part of it is uncovered because his feet ain't that big. A head first slide into a catcher is a good way to break a jaw bone, or lose some teeth.

It is a long repeated comment, that I would have to see it, but from what has been described, I have a poor head first slider and a catcher that can't hang onto the ball.

Now, in a different post on a similar subject I commented that I could call interference on the runner, and several on this board disagreed. So beit. But offensive interference "is an act...which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play" (from Fed) So if this runner interferes with the catcher with this bad legal slide while the catcher is making the play then I would rule him out. Again, my judgement on interference.

What age group of little league ball was this?

In lil' league 10-12 and under there is no head first slides at any base. You can slide back to the bag head first, but not advancing to a base. Runner is automatically out in 12yrs old and under divisions for sliding head first. In little league as a rule, the fielder must have the ball in order to be blocking a base or the plate. In your scenerio, the fielder had the ball, the runner must avoid contact. In the situation you posed, I would have called the runner out for illegal contact. IMO, the play you had was close enough to warrant a slide. Runner is out, ball is dead, all runners return to their bases last occupied at the time of illegal contact/interference.

If I'm not mistaken, malicious contact warrants automatic ejection and next game suspension. I am careful when making that call unless blatantly deliberate.

You know, sometimes some people just can't grasp the realization that at some point two players will meet on the field. Chances are that point will be where they are both trying to get at, at the same time. Like the base.

I think everyone here has throughly covered sliding or not sliding , or head first ....yadi yadi yada. One has even inferred that interference could take place?????????? Whatever.

Bottom line , when the play happens right at the bag, most of the time you have "Incidental Contact" and thats all. You WILL know when it is malicious, just be prepared to jump on those times and make the proper call.

Agreed J ice cone
 

Incidental contact happens all the time and is generally what we see.

Malicious contact has no place in any level of ball I officiate - HS through JuCo. Runner should attempt to avoid contact - step around defender or slide IF YOU WANT. There is definitely no rule that says you must slide at these levels. Yes in lower levels there are rules about when and how to slide but not in High School or above.

NFHS 8-4-2 Second Note
NOTE: Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2)

I see, what appear to be, a lot of ignorant and wrong comments in this thread. These kinds of plays are usually Had To Be There, HTBT. It is tough to judge intent, either the runners or the defenders, without seeing the play. Violence, intentional contact designed to injure or that could potentially injure should be penalized appropriately by the umpire - likely these are ALL malicious contact situations.

NFHS 8-3-2
Malicious contact supercedes obstruction. (my emphasis: there is never a reason for a runner to create malicious contact. To do so warrants immediate ejection. The umpire that does not eject better get his notebook out because there will likely be a bench clearing brawl real soon.... and it will be the umpire's fault)

Interference on the runner for a thrown ball that a defender is about to receive.....???? sounds ridiculous, unless the umpire judged it to be malicious... but again HTBT. Sounds like incidental to me.

Hopefully we are getting closer to unity and understanding of this type of contact. To not have unity here, will only perpetuate the problem.

Runners have the greatest opportunity and SHOULD AVOID CONTACT. A defender is somewhat restricted because he must go to the location of the ball to make a catch - this movement to make a catch often creates INCIDENTAL contact - not interference and not malicious, just incidental.

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 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.

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.

"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.

Where did I state Little League Rules
 

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

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

Re: Where did I state Little League Rules
 

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]

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.