Slide/No Slide

[harmbu]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Could have been.

[mbyron]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[BigBlu]

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

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BigBlu

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigBlu

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.