First one for the year
 

Varsity DH today - couldn't have asked for better weather in N MS!!

First game ended with a walk off HR - one of 2 or 3 hit by the home team in this game. Second game turned ugly in the 2nd inning when the home team put up 6 runs, including a grand slam HR. Well we keep on keepin' on as best as we can (final score was 21-11 with a walkoff HR in the 6th to get the run rule) - there were 7 or 8 HR's in this game - Including a grand slam by both squads. It kinda drug out, pushing the 3 hour mark real close.

Any way, before the 2 run shot to end it there is a play at the plate and we get the "he HAS to slide" argument. That's #1. I wonder how many more times I'll hear it. Coach and my partner talked it over. Then I hear Coach in the dug out "what book are we playing by?" Nothing malicious, the kid just didn't slide. There really wasn't much of a collision either. He just kind of ran through the play. No, F2 wasn't standing there holding the ball waiting on the runner. The ball only beat him by a step or 2. He was losing, but shoot he was out of pitching. I'll give him credit for sticking up for his catcher.

Why does everyone seem to think runners HAVE to slide? I laugh every time I hear it.

Wait 'til next year when they switch to BBCOR bats. College players hate them. That obnoxious ping is gone. It's a beautiful thing.

There wasn't a single BBCOR bat in either dugout. Getting all the good out of BESR that they can

What BBCOR bats has to do with this sit is beyond me.

It has nothing to do with my point about runners "must" slide. I think dash was just commenting on the multiple HRs and the 32 runs scored.

11 home runs in 2 games.

Darien,

So, could you paraphrase the "He's gotta' slide" discussion with the coach? I always enjoying hearing how they "frame" their argument.

Plus, I'm just envious. My first game isn't scheduled until 3/24 - and I'm just hopeful that all of the snow will have melted by then. :rolleyes:

JM

Well I kinda gave most of what I heard. I wasn't involved with the discussion. He pretty much was adamant that the runner had to slide bye claims it's in the book. Like I said, I heard him after he went back to the dug out "asking" what rule book we were playing by. That's not much info but it all I know.

I don't want to make you feel worse about waiting to start but my first games were on a beautiful Saturday at the end of February. This was my fourth date!! Not all of them have been warm and I doubt all of the rest of them will be either. Gotta love the weather in MS.

If you expect coaches to know the rules you'll usually be sadly disappointed. Guess "he has to slide" is another one of those urban legends in baseball rules along with the hand is part of the bat etc.

I'm a little jealous too; the high school season here doesn't start until the last week of May.

Did the runner attempt to avoid the catcher, assuming he had an opportunity to do so?

I have it as myth #20: "The runner must always slide when the play is close."

The myth "the hands are part of the bat" is number one by all a long shot, and has been heard at every level of ball from sandlot to the show.

Finished up last tourney Saturday. District starts Friday in Texas. Basketball playoffs finished so some of the better pitchers and infielders will start playing BB. In small schools, there are a lot of two and three sport players.

He didn't appear to, no. He ran across the plate. F2 tagged him and stepped aside.

What'cha got if he didn't slide or attempt to avoid contact? An out? F2 didn't drop the ball - he was already out.

Coach's only argument was "he HAS to slide" - he didn't aruge for an EJ. So, let's go down this road...No slide, no attempt to avoid. Coach argues as this one is, you explain that a slide is not mandatory, but he must slide or attempt to avoid contact. Coach says, Well, he didn't make any attempt to avoid contact either. Now what?

Did a double-header Varsity yesterday when coach comes to my partner and says that the other team is not allowed to say the word "Balk" when the pitcher is standing on the plate. Then came to me in between innings.

After I explained the difference between "Freedom of Speech" and "commiting
an act for the purpose of causing a balk", he said I didn't know anything about the rules. I said ok, turned around and went to right field.

8-4-2-c. Any runner is out when he does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.

Penalty: The runner is out and the ball remains live unless interference occurs and is declared.

Not applicable for this case . Fielder can't be there without the ball first. Runner still must make attempt to avoid contact though. Sounds more like incidental contact here however, HTBT.

From the OP: "The ball only beat him by a step or 2."

We had our 11U draft yesterday (yes, I was suckered into coaching my son's team) and this topic came up. A couple of the coaches are also IHSA officials who attended one of my clinics. When the league director emphasized the safe slide rule, one of them asked about the need to slide. The league director said that they will use the IHSA rule (Fed) and runners have to slide. I informed him that he had the rule wrong. We can encourage our runners to slide when played upon but they don't have to as long as they slide legally or avoid malicious contact. Grudgingly, he accepted the ruling after confirming it in my rule book. He had been under that impression for years.

Another coach asked about the very play we are describing. The catcher is waiting for an imminent throw and is standing in front of the target base. 2-22-3 seems to fit the bill here. Imminent throws don't seem relevant to Fed rules. For high school, the fielder must have the ball before blocking a base, right?

Yes.

From my position (behind the mound), I couldn't tell if F2 was blocking the plate. From the small amount of contact, I'm inclined to believe he was in position to make the play but that he wasn't blocking the plate - but I'm guessing.

Dash, you and I are on the same page. The penalty was equivalent to the outcome of the play - so nothing worth noting on the field. Had the ball come loose, PU would have called the runner out. jicecone is correct as well - incidental, HTBT (as are most contact situations) - would apply the penalty for OBS or not avoiding contact if the case presented itself.

I don't believe I've had the "they can't say balk" comment yet. That's a good one.

There are situations where contact is avoidable but not malicious. There are also situations where contact is unavoidable.

"Imminent throw" used to be in our vernacular, but no longer. Now our on-field words should include: "secure possession of the ball" and/or "allowed/denied the runner access to the base."

Here's a 2008 NFHS interp:

SITUATION 13: Without the ball in possession, the catcher sets up in the base path, but does allow access to part of home plate. As the ball and the runner converge at home simultaneously, the runner contacts the catcher. RULING: As long as the umpire judges that the catcher provided access to the plate for the runner, this is not obstruction. With the play in motion and the timing such that it is about to occur, a fielder may be in the base path without the ball, provided he allows the runner access to the base or home (2-22-3)

My question was rhetorical.

8-3-2 Situation C in the current Casebook tells the tale: A fielder CANNOT be in the basepath without the ball in his possession, nor can he be in the base path waiting for the ball to arrive without giving the runner some access to home plate.

Contact does not have to occur. I won't let a coach contend that only two sides of the plate were blocked therefore the runner still had access to the back sides.

I think that where this will be fun will involve steals at second or third. The fielder can anticipate the throw and put a foot or knee down to partially block the base (8-3-2 Casebook Situation L). You can bet that the better coaches are instructing their fielders to do that and immediately abandon their position on the tag so that we cannot see a partial or complete block. (Given that we are tracking the ball and watching for a tag.)

This should be fun.

So was my reply.

:)

Why is it that so many officials on this forum have the unending desire to be statesmen or comediennes and impending need to test coach's patience? :confused:

This was uncalled for, imo. :rolleyes:

God help him if after acquiring security of possession...he bobbles the damn thing. :p

"Why is it that so many officials on this forum have the unending desire to be" the know it all's, the English professor and the Smart arses all the time. Don't recall your name as being the "Umpire of the Year."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

^^^^^^^
Look at those rolleyes. :D You got me, you know it.

I was International Umpire of the Year. ;)

Got that right. Which is all the better reason to not be cutesy, toss one liners or lecture them on constitutional rights; most of the time, all that does is make them look and feel stupid - it makes the official look like a jester - which is the last thing a rules uneducated coach wants, regardless of whether he is or not an idiot. :p

Calmly listen, correct with short, distinct rules or related information, listen a little more, answer appropriately, end the discussion while moving off. Professional, precise, everybody should be satisfied. ;)

[QUOTE=Simply The Best;739623]^^^^^^^
Look at those rolleyes. :D You got me, you know it.

I was International Umpire of the Year. ;)[/QUOTE

Well Golly Gee Whiz!!!! Did you get a ribbon for that?

You DO realize that every time you feed a troll an angel loses his wings and crashes and dies?

I understand that God kills a kitten, as well. :rolleyes:


JM

Again, do those shoes fit?

Please stop quoting this idiot. Those of us who have made use of the ignore list don't see his posts *unless* someone else quotes them.

I would like to know how many "In Time Out"s he and his alter ego gets before Bob deletes their accounts, myself.

I'd like to know how it is you know that I had a 24 suspension, hmmmmmmmm?:rolleyes:

When you read a thread, it indicates "In Time Out" (or something like that) by the user's name.

Everyone might get a chance to see that again.

Thanks for the reply. I didn't see that when I was at my buddy's when he logged in. RichMSN had me on his Ignore List so he couldn't have seen it.

Word travels fast, yes? ;)
Bob, I haven't done one thing that hasn't been surpassed by several Members here several times since I entered the forum. Please PM me and let me know why it is that I am being singled out.