The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 209
Slide/No Slide

We had a play in our FED game where the PU called a double play due to interference on the runner going to second base. Initially PU stated, "Batter is out! Runner did not slide at second base!" The opposing coach questioned the call and asked if he was saying that the runner must slide. At this point, PU said, "He has to either slide or vacate." The coach then asked if there was contact on the play and PU said, "No, but shortstop changed his throw because of the runner.

Is this the correct interpretation?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Could have been.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
8-4-2b includes within interference the concept that the runner "illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play." So if the umpire meant that the alteration in the fielder's play was the result of the runner's action, then yes the interpretation is correct.

To judge whether the rule was correctly applied by the umpire in this case, I would have to see the play or have a more complete description.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
8-4-2b includes within interference the concept that the runner "illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play." So if the umpire meant that the alteration in the fielder's play was the result of the runner's action, then yes the interpretation is correct.

To judge whether the rule was correctly applied by the umpire in this case, I would have to see the play or have a more complete description.
That's what I said -- you just used more words.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 08:06pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
That's what I said -- you just used more words.
MByron learned his descriptive writing from reading my posts on the Basketball Forum.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 08, 2011, 10:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4
I am a bit messed up with this one too. If the runner is NOT required to slide and he is running in the baseline how does this qualify as interference. The rule states he must "illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play." I agree that his action altered the play, but he is not required to slide and he was within the baseline, so why is that considered illegally altering the play. My understanding was that a runner had to intentionally interfere with a throw for their to be interference.

I am new here, so don't beat me up too bad.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 06:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlu View Post
I agree that his action altered the play, but he is not required to slide and he was within the baseline, so why is that considered illegally altering the play. My understanding was that a runner had to intentionally interfere with a throw for their to be interference.
If the runner executes a legal slide, he can legally contact the fielder and/or alter the fielder's actions. If he does not slide legally (either by sliding illegally or by not sliding at all), any contact or altering of the play is illegal. The wording is poor, but that's what it means. Intent is irrelevant. The runner is interfering with a fielder, not with a thrown ball.

Last edited by dash_riprock; Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:18am.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 09, 2011, 07:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlu View Post
but he is not required to slide and he was within the baseline,
He is allowed to run in a direction "away from" the fielder.

Note that this play has generated much discussion since the dawn of the internet. FED hasn't really clarified it. They have one case where the runner is "less than half way" to second when hit by the throw -- that's legal.

My take is that if he's close enough to slide, then he must slide (or run away) or be liable for interference.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slide And Get Up BillyMac Basketball 8 Sun Dec 02, 2007 08:56pm
When does a slide begin? Don Mueller Baseball 42 Mon May 21, 2007 01:25pm
"Must slide" !!! 3afan Softball 7 Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:09pm
Slide or no slide? Newbie Scott Baseball 3 Wed Apr 28, 2004 04:54pm
slide or not chasbo Softball 1 Sat Apr 17, 2004 05:19pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1