The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 12, 2002, 08:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 92
I was wondering if a player is required to slide at home plate.
Situation: B2 hits a flyball to center, R1 tags from third and is heading home. The F2 recieves the throw when R1 is about 10ft from home. R1 doesn't slide, a collision occurs but is not ruled malicous. The catcher drops the ball and R1 touches the plate.

What's the call?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 12, 2002, 09:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
In safety-conscious Fed, assuming it's a real collision and not just a bump, the runner is out for interference (illegal contact), but not for failure to slide. No rule requires a runner to slide. Sliding is just one option to avoid illegal contact. In real baseball, collisions like the one you describe are simply part of the game. The runner is safe.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 14, 2002, 12:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Wait a minute. How do we assume the contact was illegal? It was not ruled malicious. It seems from what was described, that the contact took place at the plate. At which point either the runner intentionally tried to dislodge the ball maliciously, or the runner tied to tag the plate without sliding, incidental contact. Just because the catcher dropped the ball, doesn't mean that the "contact was illegal" and "that it altered the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play".FED Sect 4.2.b.

If the runner had made contact with the catcher before he received the ball up the line, thats different. At the plate there would still be judgement if the contact was because two people were meeting at the same place or on purpose by the runner. Malicious.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 14, 2002, 09:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Well, I was assuming the contact to be "a real collision and not just a bump," something in between malicious contact (a deliberate crash that warrants automatic ejection) and incidental contact (simply trying to tag the base without sliding). On the other hand, Fed may not recognize anything in between. A collision might have to be either malicious contact or nothing, no call of "runner out for colliding with catcher, but it wasn't malicious so the runner is not ejected." Perhaps that's why BRD says, "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."

PS. jicecone, I think you meant rule 8-4-2b.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 14, 2002, 10:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,816
Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Wait a minute. How do we assume the contact was illegal? It was not ruled malicious. It seems from what was described, that the contact took place at the plate. At which point either the runner intentionally tried to dislodge the ball maliciously, or the runner tied to tag the plate without sliding, incidental contact. Just because the catcher dropped the ball, doesn't mean that the "contact was illegal" and "that it altered the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play".FED Sect 4.2.b.

The rule to apply is 8-4-2C "does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him"

It might also have been 8-4-2R "deliberately knocks the ball from the fielder's hand."

Either way, it's an out, but not an ejection. And, the ball remains live unless it's judged to be interference (e.g., fielder drops ball or falls down).
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 14, 2002, 10:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2
bob jenkins you're correct. On this situation, NO contact is allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 15, 2002, 10:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,816
Quote:
Originally posted by DOC1
bob jenkins you're correct. On this situation, NO contact is allowed.
Thanks -- but I didn't say NO contact is allowed. In fact, contact is allowed, as long as it's (a) not malicious, and (b) caused by a legal attempt to avoid the tag.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 15, 2002, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Sorry about that, I did mean 8.4.2.b
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1