An Odd Play at The Plate
 

Hello. Softball official here, with a baseball question.

I was a spectator at my son's high school (JV) game. There was a play in the game that resulted in some heated debate and one coach being dumped. I believe the umpire got it right, but I could see why a coach would at least want to have a discussion with the official. My son was not involved with the play in question.

R1 on third, no outs. Fly ball to shallow/medium left. Runner tags up and attempts to score. F2 comes out from behind the plate, strattling 3B line. Ball beats runner, but F2 drops the ball. A momment later, R1 collides (everyone - coaches from both teams and umpire - agree not malicious) with F2. After collision, R1 steps on plate and is ruled safe.

DC coach calls time, wants runner ruled out for "not sliding" at home. Umpire rules incidental contact (I'm thinking OBS, but thats just me and beside the point). DC doesn't know when to stop, assistant coach gets promoted.

Other parents know that I umpire, ask my opinion. As usual, my answer is that softball and baseball have different rules. Again, I think the umpire got it right. Do those of you here that call Fed games agree? Is there a "must slide" rule? Thanks.

There is no "must slide rule" in FED, OBR, NCAA, NAIA, or under any other baseball code I know of. In FED, the defense may not obstruct without possession of the ball.

By the way, softball umpires may go by FED baserunner nomenclature, most baseball umpires do not. R3 is the runner on third. It is more descriptive and and an economy of language to simply say "R3", rather than "R1 is on third."

No, there is not a "must slide" rule in FED baseball.

The baseball standard is that the runner must "legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him". That can be accomplished by sliding, by slowing down or otherwise trying to go around the fielder.

Ah, but the FED baseball rules, case book and umpire manual do!

When in Rome... :D

The books aren't Rome. We are here, at this baseball site. This is Rome.

You will note that I stated "most baseball umpires..." I believe that is an accurate assessment.

You will note that I did not question the accuracy of your statement.

It is an economy of language to use the "standard" nomenclature. It is also a point that often times on internet discussion boards causes an excess of words to be used to explain why it uses less wording. :)

Ball beat the runner, then dropped
 

That is not obstruction.
Ruling F2 dropped the ball and R3 most likely would have scored absent collision.
R3 may have gained an advantage by colliding with F2 first, then stepping on the plate.
IOW, DC advocating the collision prevented F2 from picking up the ball and tagging R3.
DC's point moot after PU's safe call.

"DC coach calls time, wants runner ruled out for "not sliding" at home."
Movement underway to eliminate trainwrecks from occurring in FED play.
This FED emphasis to avoid collisions adds "confusion" to this type of play.
It would appear the umpire did have a handle on the play, safe or out.

"Assistant coach gets promoted," great phrase.

Sounds like F2 may have been up the 3B line. It's tough enough to make the call when you are there!

Thanks, everyone, for the replies.

The umpire was right not to call the runner out for not sliding. If the contact is not malicious, the next question is whether this is obstruction. A fielder is not permitted to block a runner's path without the ball -- whether it's at his feet or in the outfield.

If F2 is holding the ball and the runner does not attempt to avoid him (by sliding or going around) FED rules have him out (8-4-2c), even with no interference call.

I prefer the baseball way, but I deal with the softball method when talking about softball plays. The softball people say something like it's easier to keep track of runners over multiple batters or something like that, but how often does that even happen in case plays? Just another one of those differences...

As for the call, it sounds correct to me.

Does the issue that F2 touches the ball prior to contact factor in with a possible non-interference?
In another sich, lets say, catcher is on the plate, ball beats runner who slides, ball hits catchers glove( but pops out unseen by F2) immediately he kneels to sweeptag runner, causing runner to stop short because he slide into F2's knee. F2 picks up ball and then tags.

I've pictured the rule change to penalize a fielder who interferes/blocks access before catching the ball, but what if the ball beats the runner but bounces off the defense's glove before contact?

That's the fielder's fault for not catching the ball (in FED and NCAA).

And, please use the correct term "obstruction" (not "interference") when refering to the defensive hindrance.

I agree. 2-22-3 defines 'obstruction' in these terms: "The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve" (my emphasis). Having the ball nearby does not constitute possession.