Little League Slide Rule

[SanDiegoSteve]

Unfortunately for your grand plans, there are far more youth league umpires than HS, NCAA, and pro umpires combined. You should have realized that eventually the tide would turn.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Unfortunately for your grand plans, there are far more youth league umpires than HS, NCAA, and pro umpires combined. You should have realized that eventually the tide would turn.

Not only are there more youth league umpires, they're the ones most in need of getting help from an outlet like OF. How many myths have been disspelled because of this forum........


Tim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Not only are there more youth league umpires, they're the ones most in need of getting help from an outlet like OF. How many myths have been disspelled because of this forum........


Tim.

Approximately zero.

[aceholleran]

I'm not the best, but in 30+ years, I've done everything from Li'l Squirts to a summer, college/20-something/ex-pro league.

I do think that some of us can get a little uppity with newbies or ones who have LL questions.

Can't we all live together?

Ace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Ace, you weren't around when I explained this before, so I'll give it another go.

This has nothiong to do with elitism. I volunteer my time to train youth umpires as well as our asociation umpires. I've done this for years. I have also assigned for youth leagues and supervised their umpires.

I don't mind answering questions from youth umpires (provided they ask about mechanics or about rules with which I am familiar). I get PM's and emails on a regular basis from youth umpires.

However, much like when I teach and can escape once in a while to the teachers' lounge and have adult conversations without interruption from students, it was nice to have an internet board where umpires of similar background and experience could discuss and debate relevant issues. It doesn't seem unreasonable that one internet board would be created for non LL (generic) umpires to do just that as this board was.

However, LL umpires apparently have this need to dominate every board they come across. Look at the top three umpiring sites: Eteamz, ABUA and Officialforum. LL umpires are the vast majority at the first two. They can and do ask their questions and recieve answers all day long. They "own" those boards and that's fine. I tire of some of their posts so I don't go to Eteamz at all and severely limit my time at ABUA.

Add to those boards the numerous second and third tier boards which LL umpires completely control and the options they have are incredible.

Officialforum was like a sanctuary at first. Carl sent out invites to help get a "non LL" board started.. Naively, we assumed that since LL umpires already had alternatives, if they came to the new board they would come to learn about non LL ball. No problem with that. God knows beginners need a place to learn about rules other than LL.

Gradually, but with the certainty that Tee predicted, as LL umpire found the site and got their OBR, FED and NCAA questions answered, they began bringing their LL baggage with them as well. When they ask LL specific questions, I refer them one of the predominantly LL boards where they can get their questions answered by experienced LL umpires.

Oh, well, the invasion isn't limited to the boards. I was involved with a private list that went the same route. It's as if your favorite neighborhood bar got bought out, redesigned and recruited a new clientele and went from a sports theme to a 20 something martini bar.

Now I don't expect anyone to agree with this, but I had expected some to understand. Again, I was naive.

It's not naivete in the case of the mailing list, it was more a case of not waiting and seeing what would happen. The one member I added has asked a few questions (non-LL) and doesn't participate much. I didn't exactly go to the LL mailing list and throw invitations to all that posted there.

Sometimes, it's nice to open the door to the lounge and allow people to listen to the conversations that go on there. In your case, my friend, you left way too quickly and you'll always be welcome back.

[Illini_Ref]

I find it interesting that LL uses "slide or attempt to get around", instead of "slide or avoid contact". In theory could a LLer make contact with a fielder with the ball as long as he was "attempting" to get around said fielder?

The rule is obviously there for safety reasons. I think it should say "a fielder in possession of the ball or awaiting an impending play". As long as it isn't malicious, a LLer can make contact as long as the ball is not in the glove of the fielder.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I find it interesting that LL uses "slide or attempt to get around", instead of "slide or avoid contact". In theory could a LLer make contact with a fielder with the ball as long as he was "attempting" to get around said fielder?

The rule is obviously there for safety reasons. I think it should say "a fielder in possession of the ball or awaiting an impending play". As long as it isn't malicious, a LLer can make contact as long as the ball is not in the glove of the fielder.

Because the runner's entitled to attempt to run the bases and get to the base. The rule applies everywhere, not just at home or at a base. And if the tag attempt is away from a base (in a rundown for example) you don't want to always require a slide then do you? You need an alternative.

Yes, he could make contact while going around. But, if the runner starts to go around and the fielder moves into his path and "causes" the contact you don't want the onus on the runner - do you?

Do you want to require runners to give up?

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Because the runner's entitled to attempt to run the bases and get to the base. The rule applies everywhere, not just at home or at a base. And if the tag attempt is away from a base (in a rundown for example) you don't want to always require a slide then do you? You need an alternative.

Yes, he could make contact while going around. But, if the runner starts to go around and the fielder moves into his path and "causes" the contact you don't want the onus on the runner - do you?

Do you want to require runners to give up?

No, I just want them to slide or avoid contact. If contact is made it should be done while sliding, with some exceptions. For instance if the play is well up the line, the runner is not going to slide or if the fielder initiates contact. I just like the "avoid contact" ruling better, that's all.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I find it interesting that LL uses "slide or attempt to get around", instead of "slide or avoid contact". In theory could a LLer make contact with a fielder with the ball as long as he was "attempting" to get around said fielder?

The rule is obviously there for safety reasons. I think it should say "a fielder in possession of the ball or awaiting an impending play". As long as it isn't malicious, a LLer can make contact as long as the ball is not in the glove of the fielder.

Illini,

I'm curious what rules set provides that a runner must "slide or avoid contact"? The LL rule where a runner must slide or attempt to get around a fielder is essentially the same as FED "does not legally slide or attempt to avoid a fielder.


Tim.

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Illini,

I'm curious what rules set provides that a runner must "slide or avoid contact"? The LL rule where a runner must slide or attempt to get around a fielder is essentially the same as FED "does not legally slide or attempt to avoid a fielder.


Tim.

I am saying that "slide or avoid contact" would be better wording for ALL rule sets that have similar language. More black and white for the umpire that way. If you make contact (not initiated by the fielder) and are not sliding, you are out.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

If you make contact (not initiated by the fielder) and are not sliding, you are out.

I can't speak for LL, but for other codes, that is exactly why they don't have the language you suggest. Contact happens and you can't have blanket policy.

Using the phrase "attempt to avoid" makes far more sense. It keeps the onus on the runner, but recognizes reality.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I can't speak for LL, but for other codes, that is exactly why they don't have the language you suggest. Contact happens and you can't have blanket policy.

Using the phrase "attempt to avoid" makes far more sense. It keeps the onus on the runner, but recognizes reality.

And this kind of response is why this LL umpire is here.

I'm not actually planning on officiating different rule codes, but I'm fascinated by the additional insight they give to the rules and standards of baseball. I'm sure that I'm a better LL umpire from reading (and very occasionally posting) to this site.

In any case, as you're well aware by now, it's hard to keep the riffraff out of a publicly accessible internet forum. But there are any number of sites that allow anybody to create a private message board and exclude me. I hope you don't completely leave the public internet; you'll be missed.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I am saying that "slide or avoid contact" would be better wording for ALL rule sets that have similar language. More black and white for the umpire that way. If you make contact (not initiated by the fielder) and are not sliding, you are out.

Okay, Illini_Ref; read your post again slowly! In order for your "slide or avoid contact" explanation to work, you must also add a "must slide" statement! Why? Because in your explanation,

If you make contact (not initiated by the fielder) and are not sliding, you are out.

. Of course, if you say that a runner "must slide" then you must determine "when" a runner has to slide. After that, you must evolve the discussion to "how" a runner has to slide - feet first, head first, pop-up, body block, cross body, rolling - the list ca go on and on! And after all that, you have to figure out the penalties for each of the violations!

Simply put, none of the 3 rule sets (OBR, NCAA & FED) dare to put a runner in the dirt for any reason. The spin offs (LL, Babe Ruth) also do not force a runner into the dirt. Only idiotic "local rule" jerks try force players to slide thinking that it will do something (what I still haven't figured out in over 40 years) to help the game!

The best advice I can give you is simple, work within the rule set's definition for FPSR, illegal slide, or malicious contact. There you will find the proper instructions for when a runner should get down (runner's choice) and whether said slide will be accepted. To do otherwise is just asking for trouble!

Regards

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SAump

Best explanation I have seen yet on the subject of FPSR in any ruleset. Now, whether you remove the bad attitude I marked in bold above or simply improve the wording for political corrrectness; I imagine you can answer 20% of the LL'ers FPSR questions.

I umpired at an unfamiliar park once and a manager argued that the runner ALWAYS had to slide at the plate, even if there was no play being made.

I think that guy may have made it into the second inning.