Please help me with the following.

In a USSSA game, the runner does not slide at second and, therefore, a throw is not made to first. However, there was no chance of making the out at first because B/R had already reached the base. With regards to the slide/avoid rule, should the B/R have been called out because of what happened at second base?

Thx...

Luis

I don't know what rules code USSSA plays under for sure. I believe it's OBR with only a few modifications.

If they use OBR rules, unless R2 had intent to interfere with a throw, then no, the BR would not be called out.

If this were a game played under FED rules, then yes, R2 has violated the FPSR and the BR is called out as well.


Tim.

U-trip plays under OBR. There is no out on BR in this situation. Unless, this was an intentional attempt to interfere with the throw. I doubt seriously that was the case, but don't know without being there. No chance to get the runner any way, I wouldn't look to get the BR called out on this.

This really doesn't come under the slide or avoid rule, either. The question seems more geared at the FED FPSR, which does not exist in U-trip (OBR).

Would this not occur after a pause in the action (rather slight relaxation period, granted)? Thus causing the attempted throw to 1B to be a "new" play? Or are you referring to this all happening at once. IE - Throw to F4, turn to "make play" on BR. The DP is not possible from the initial playing action. Would there not be some hesitation prior to the throw to 1B?

I see your point - I just see a relaxation in the playing action that would alleviate the INT. Unless, of course R1 has now moved into such a position as to INT with the "new" play.

[/B][/QUOTE]
The slide/avoid rule is subject to R being tagged only and the choices are slide (with contact) or avoid contact all together. Did R1 observe this rule?

The answer to the questions above will resolve a determination for you. [/B][/QUOTE]

Doesn't appear he slid (by what is written). No application of the rule. Agreed?

Doesn't appear he slid (by what is written). No application of the rule. Agreed? [/B][/QUOTE]

As to relaxation, possible, we don't know, judgmental, as to avoiding contact, no mention was made of contact and no mention of a slide. Looks like R1 is cool there.

Back on the possible R2 interference, which is a separate issue to S/A, if he interfered, B now R is out. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed.

But the INT is completely judgemental (at this point in discussion anyway)- HTBT - no way to call it from the cheap seats.

First off, there is no "must slide" under any of the current 3 rule books (OBR, NCAA or FED).

Second, B1 was safe at first by his own actions.

Third, you ask "With regards to the slide/avoid rule, should the B/R have been called out because of what happened at second base?" Did R1 interfere with the fielder's throw to first?

The theory of "slide or avoid" has the gross misconception that a runner has to slide no matter what. I like the FED rendition that states that "a runner does not have to slide but if he chooses to slide, it must be a legal slide". The FED then goes on to state what is a legal slide.

A runner can go into a base standing up and as long as there is no interference, that's legal! By the same token, R1 can be charging to 2nd and F6 turning the play when R1 performes a legal slide but over slides the base and makes contact with F6 - that's interference!

The runner simply did not slide, for he was out by about 4 steps. The coach argued that, because R did not slide, a throw could not have been made to 1B. The runner was in fact between the F2 and 1B, in the proper base line. However, there was no intent whatsoever on his part.

........."It is the base runner's responsibility to avoid contact with the fielder when he has the ball. Slide or avoid is in effect at all times when fielder is in possession of ball......"

That is from the USSSA website rules section.
It goes on to say if it is intentional, you may eject.
So....he didnt slide, and he didnt avoid. Sometimes ya just gotta umpire. Go with what you see, and if it looks like interference, to you, call it. You have the aforementioned rule reference to back you up.
Maybe in your scenario, call it. Without having seen the play, if you dont call it, it sets a precedent, at least for the rest of that game. The teams now think they may be able to go in like that on any play.
At that level, call that stuff early, USSSA being a youth league, has that safety stuff in place. And coach wont have much to argue your point with.

Where did you find that? This is what I found:


<i>8.03.F Whenever a tag play is evident, runners must slide or seek to avoid contact with the fielder. Malicious contact shall supersede all obstruction penalties.
PENALTY: Runner shall be declared out and may be ejected from the game at the umpire’s discretion.
NOTE: When enforcing this rule, the umpire should judge the runner’s intent. If the umpire feels that the contact was unintentional, then the runner should only be declared out. If the umpire feels that the contact was intentional and / or malicious, then the runner should be declared
out and ejected.</i>

Note that

1) It refe4rs to tag plays, not force plays.
2) It does NOT require a slide, only a choice of sliding or seeking to avoid contact.


A search reveals that it is the only instance of the word "slide" in their book.

http://www.baseballfirst.com rules section

Well, that's nice.

Somehow though, I think looking up the USSSA rules at http://www.usssabaseball.org, as I did, will yield a better answer.

The coaches need to teach those middle infielders at a young age that if the runner doesn't slide or run out of the baseline to avoid interfering with the throw, to chuck it right at their melon. They will soon learn to "slide or avoid" whenever they are forced and a play is made on them.

This is how we learned the game, so what is the sense in babying the youth of today? Ever see a big leaguer come in standing up when the fielder is at the bag turning the routine DP?

To quote a sage, this ties for the dumbest post on the internet. Who's going to pay those coaches' legal bills - you?

WOW, Did I really read what I think I just read? :mad:
Gee, SDS, you sound more like a Rat Coach (read: blithering idiot) than an umpire! :o

Child abuse used to be okay, too. Whitey Ford "pitched" cigarettes that helped him win games. Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes and aimed high.

Ahhhhh. The good old days.

I used to play a lot of racquetball. When one player was about to hit the ball and the other inadvertently got right in their way, you could hold up, not hit the ball, and call hinder. It was the gentlemanly thing to do and the point was replayed.

In baseball however there are no hinders. If I was a coach, I would simply tell my players to throw the ball. It is the base runner's responsibility to get the heck out of the way. If for some reason the pivot man could see that his throw was going to nail someone and they had time to think about it and double clutch, I would encourage them to do that as I'm sure interference would likely be called.

But first and foremost they should just complete the throw and tried for the double play. I think that maybe what Steve had been trying to say.

Thank you. Yes, that's what I was trying to say exactly. If a baserunner is in the way of a direct throw to first base, he is liable to get beaned. That's what I meant. The coach should tell the fielder to go ahead and throw the ball.

I understand all the legal liabilities these days. Everything is litigation. Sorry for offending your PC sensibilities folks, but I learned how to play baseball before they had a "slide or avoid rule." We played rough and tumble baseball back in the day, and after that, we were old enough to join Little League. We entered the game knowing the fundamentals, which is very different today. Our coaches would have had no problem with what I said.

I've seen some of your articles, so I guess they are what my post is tied with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Quote:

[ The coach should tell the fielder to go ahead and throw the ball.

That's a much different statement than: "chuck it right at their melon."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve Quote: [ The coach should tell the fielder to go ahead and throw the ball. That's a much different statement than: "chuck it right at their melon."

Yes, in hindsight, that was a bit over the top.

I liken this play to a batter's interference on a steal - just because he's there (the batter in front of the plate or the runner standing in the base path) doesn't mean he interfered. That's why I get the big money - to decide if he interfered.

JJ

Hey Tom,

Come in standing up when I'm turning the DP and see what I do then. I know I'll get the interference call, and the throw will not have been stupid, but you will have been.

After saying that Steves advice was stupid (3 times) and inferring that he was as well, you should likely take your own advice.

Pejorative words like "stupid" are not a sign of maturity...

USSSA uses OBR. They have a "no collision rule" but the situation described does not come under that category since there was no collision.

There is no equivalent of the FED FPSR.

The middle infielder should have thrown the ball just like the big leaguers do. Had he done that, a valuable lesson would have been learned.

Either ...

R1 would learn how much it hurts when hit with a baseball, or

The middle infielder would find out what happens when you try to throw *around* a runner who is in the way ... a WILD THROW!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

What...????????

He's just telling you that just about every other poster here posts after the very bottom quote sign. That lets people read the points being made in order instead of seeing the answer <b>before</b> the question- as per posting at the top.

Make sense now?

I kinda figured that was what he was getting at. I feel just the opposite. I don't like having to read through (and scroll through) pages of stuff I just read just to see a paragraph of response. At least when you post on the top, you can read the good stuff first...

Notice he has posted twice though to my post without actually responding to it. Maybe he is a dancer in his free time...

I think what he's saying is that Windy is upset by the volume of post's he's made in such a short time. There are some forums that provide a monthly top poster list each month.

For whatever reason, I think some people think topping that list gives credence to what they have to say.

Tim.

David,

Pretty much exactly what I said, minus the "melon" part.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Where's the list? [/B][/QUOTE]

You are the only one on the list, thomaswhite. ;)

JJ