Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)...
 

Here's the situation; 1 out, R2. B1 hits single to center, F8 makes play on ball, throws to plate to make a play on R2 heading for home. F2 is set up for throw near plate, in fair territory, exposing rear half of plate for R2. Ball arrives on target to a crouching F2, but a few milliseconds late, as R2 slides into F2 and plate. R2 spikes F2 directly in the cup, while touching front half of the plate to score. I don't believe that the spiking was intentional, but R2 clearly did not make any attempt to avoid contact, by sliding towards the open back half of the plate. PU rules R2 safe, no call on the contact.

I've seen a number of similar no calls, on both runners and fielders, on this issue during the HS season. I'm particularly annoyed about this here in Colorado, since it was specifically brought up as a point of emphasis this year.

I'm looking forward to reading the viewpoints of the experts on this!

Cheers...

John

John,

The only question I have from reading your description is, was the slide "Fed-legal"?

Specifically, per 2-32-1b, was the runner's leg raised "...higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position..."

If, in the umpire's judgement, the runner raised his leg higher than the catcher's "standing knee", it's an illegal slide and the runner should have been called out.

If, on the other hand, the catcher was going to his knees to tag the approaching runner (as I'm picturing your play), then the runner was perfectly legal. Sometimes baseball is a rough game.

JM

The runner doesn't have to slide toward the open part of any base.

A runner who slides directly into the base doesn't have to avoid contact.

Now how did the runner spike the catcher "directly in the cup"? Sounds like an illegal slide, if the foot was high enough to do that. Now we might be into the area of malicious contact, so I'll leave the rest to the umps who do Fed.

Most fans, and some coaches and players, think that any collision at all must be a violation of some kind.

It's slide or avoid contact, not slide and avoid contact. The runner is not required to do both. As long as the slide was legal, so was the contact.

UmpJM, by your description, the slide would be considered legal, because F2 was crouching down, moving toward a catch and tag. R2's foot was near, but not above standing knee height.

SanDiegoSteve, I don't have my NFHS rule book with me right now, so I'll accept your quote regarding or vs. and. The quote that confuses me here is from the CHSBUA (Colorado High School Baseball Umpire Assoc.) bulletin issued to us coaches at the beginning of the HS season:

Runners never have to slide, but MUST avoid contact.

Additional quotes from this bulletin regarding obstruction:

Obstruction

• Fielder blocking a base must have the ball.
• Primarily applies to plays at the plate and pickoffs at first.
• Does not apply to “train wrecks,” etc.

I don't think this situation falls under the "train wreck" catagory.

I'm just trying to figure out how this all fits together. Thanks for the help!

John

If that's all the slide says, and it stands alone, then it's wrong (at least by the FED rules used in mos tof the rest of the country).

The runner never has to slide under FED but if he chooses to, he must slide legally as prescribed by the FED rule book. That said, let's turn our attention to F2 who has the ball and has probably rotated toward 3rd base and I can guarantee has rolled forward onto his knees to make the tag and hopefully block access to the plate. I can see here how the cleats can get into the crotch of F2 and so far I see nothing wrong.

I would check with the person who writes your bulletins to clarify what exactly he meant by that. I would be willing to bet that he meant that the runner does not ever have to slide, but if he does not, he must avoid illegal contact. Rule 8-4-2b and NOTE.