The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   force slide rule? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/91615-force-slide-rule.html)

Rich Ives Thu Jun 07, 2012 04:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 845169)
Let's bear in mind two distinct provisions of the rules:

1. FPSR: FED and NCAA have this, it applies to force plays, and it requires runners who choose to slide (not required) to slide directly into and not past the base to which they were forced, and otherwise to refrain from affecting the play at and around the base.

2. Slide or avoid: nearly all non-pro leagues have this rule, which prevents intentionally crashing a catcher who has the ball. The runner must slide, go around, or give himself up if the catcher has the ball.

The FPSR, despite the thread's title, is irrelevant to the OP. The question concerns the slide or avoid rule, and it sounds as if the catcher didn't have the ball when the collision took place or, if he did, that the throw drew him into the path of the runner.

Although I couldn't say for sure without seeing the play, based on the description from the catcher's father (if biased, biased in favor of the umpire's call), the call was likely incorrect. Train wrecks sometimes happen, and not all contact at the plate is illegal.

NCAA you can slide straight through the base (8-4-a and diagram). FED you have to stop at the base. Legion uses the NCAA version.

And where there are "avoid" rules most say "attempt to avoid" - an important distinction

And yes - it does sound like a train wreck in the OP.

dileonardoja Thu Jun 07, 2012 05:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 845212)
NCAA you can slide straight through the base (8-4-a and diagram). FED you have to stop at the base. Legion uses the NCAA version.

And where there are "avoid" rules most say "attempt to avoid" - an important distinction

And yes - it does sound like a train wreck in the OP.

FINALLY!!! ATTEMPT is the key word. Which means you can have contact and still have nothing.

DG Thu Jun 07, 2012 07:23pm

"Collides with his legs" is a bit vague. Collided how? If he was sliding legally then I have a train wreck and no call.

"Had his legs contacted by the runner and then the umpire called the runner out." is also a bit vague. Contacted how?

If the runner goes in standing lowers his shoulders and collides/contacts the catcher's legs while he is in the air (or not in the air if he lowers shoulders into him) I very likely have malicious contact.

"I don't believe the contact was intentional at all" probably has as much info as any other, because if he collided or made contact and it did not appear intentional then the case for interference or MC is slim and the call incorrect.

Steven Tyler Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 845207)
Beginning to sound more like a train wreck. As you said, it appeared that both players were doing what they should have been doing.

I agree that many officials feel that contact requires a call but the problem is they seem to think that the call must be either obstruction or interference. They forget that most of the time, the safe signal and "That's Nothing!" is the correct choice to make. Just goes to show you that experience, knowledge of the rules and the game make a better official.

I never use the words "that's nothing". I only signify or announce when I have something.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1