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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Because the runner did not slide legally. If he executes a legal slide, he can legally alter the fielder's actions. 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.

+1

It's also worth remembering that on a force play the slide must be directly into the base, which is one place the fielder usually isn't. If the fielder does happen to be there during a legal slide, then the contact is legal, as dash points out.

[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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

That's my take as well, FED and NCAA.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I believe that's the general consensus, and certainly matches my understanding.

[BigBlu]

Thank you everyone for your insights, they are very helpful.

Jim

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

This assumption is not only wrong (in FED) but will get you into trouble.

1. No runner is ever required to slide (FED, NCAA, OBR)
2. If a runner chooses to slide, he must do so legally. In FED, it must be directly from the runner's position in a straight line to the base. The runner may veer away from the fielder, or run in an opposite direction from the fielder's position. The runner may not over slide the base, pop up (allowed in NCAA), or high cleat as he slides.
3. If a runner chooses not to slide (FED) and interference occurs, the runner is called out (and may be called for Malicious Contact).

So you see, in FED, we must let the play develop before we assume the runner is out. A runner can choose not to slide and run through 2nd base, while the pivot man has already cleared or has no chance of making the play. On the other side of the coin, the slide could be a "take out" requiring a DP call and/or MC.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

This assumption is not only wrong (in FED) but will get you into trouble.

1. No runner is ever required to slide (FED, NCAA, OBR)
2. If a runner chooses to slide, he must do so legally. In FED, it must be directly from the runner's position in a straight line to the base. The runner may veer away from the fielder, or run in an opposite direction from the fielder's position. The runner may not over slide the base, pop up (allowed in NCAA), or high cleat as he slides.
3. If a runner chooses not to slide (FED) and interference occurs, the runner is called out (and may be called for Malicious Contact).

So you see, in FED, we must let the play develop before we assume the runner is out. A runner can choose not to slide and run through 2nd base, while the pivot man has already cleared or has no chance of making the play. On the other side of the coin, the slide could be a "take out" requiring a DP call and/or MC.

I think both of you are saying the same things. Liable doesn't mean that we will call interference -- only that we're going to be taking a close look at it and if the runner going in standing up interferes with the pivot, we're going to bang two.

I hear umpires locally say, "You can't take out the fielder" or "You can't break up two." I cringe when I hear that -- of *course* you can take out the pivot man -- if the slide is legal (which means straight to the base and all the other stuff) and the fielder is in the "wrong" spot then contact can be quite severe and still legal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

This assumption is not only wrong (in FED) but will get you into trouble.

"be liable for" is not the same as "automatically called out for..." IF there's no interference, then there's nothing to be liable for.

The runner may not over slide the base, pop up (allowed in NCAA),

Sure he can, as long as no contact is made (and the initial contact must be beyond the base in the case of the over slide).

It's kind of the same point you were making to me -- if there's no interference, there's no out.