force slide rule?

[wyo-referee]

my son was the catcher, he didn't have the ball yet, as the throw was in the air coming towards homeplate but up the line, he went up the line and jumped to catch it and had his legs contacted by the runner and then the umpire called the runner out. I don't believe the contact was intentional at all, just two players going in opposite directions to make a play.

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by wyo-referee

my son was the catcher, he didn't have the ball yet, as the throw was in the air coming towards homeplate but up the line, he went up the line and jumped to catch it and had his legs contacted by the runner and then the umpire called the runner out. I don't believe the contact was intentional at all, just two players going in opposite directions to make a play.

As others have stated, Babe Ruth does not have a "MUST SLIDE" rule. Some local organizations may.

Obviously, our standard answer to most of these things is "I would have to have been there" to properly judge.
As I am envisioning the scenario you described, I would not have called the runner out. It sounds like an errant throw drew the catcher into harms way and if he didn't have the ball in his possession, that is his problem, not the runners. Without malicious contact, I got nothing.

[wyo-referee]

thanks for the information, I was skeptical about the ruling even though it went in our favor.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by wyo-referee

my son was the catcher, he didn't have the ball yet, as the throw was in the air coming towards homeplate but up the line, he went up the line and jumped to catch it and had his legs contacted by the runner and then the umpire called the runner out. I don't believe the contact was intentional at all, just two players going in opposite directions to make a play.

HTBT ... but this sounds more like possible obstruction than possible interference. Without some sort of intentional move on the runner's part to interfere with the catch (like ... he veered INTO the catcher), I'd be hard pressed to find interference here.

[mbyron]

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

great points!

Too many umpires think just because there is contact you have to call something - not always true though!

Thanks
DAvid

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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]

"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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

HTBT ... but this sounds more like possible obstruction than possible interference.

As you know, it would not be OBS if the ball was nearly there.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

HTBT ... but this sounds more like possible obstruction than possible interference. Without some sort of intentional move on the runner's part to interfere with the catch (like ... he veered INTO the catcher), I'd be hard pressed to find interference here.

Train wreck...........toot, toot.

[rbmartin]

Here is my basic rule of thumb (OBR/Babe Ruth):
a) Fielder recieving accurate, inflight throw + normal collision = Interference (out)
b) Fielder with ball + intentional, violent collision = Malicious contact (out & ejection)
c) Fielder recieving errant throw + collision = train wreck (play on)
d) Fielder retreiving errant throw or missed ball + collision = "type A" obstruction (immediate dead ball / runner advances)

a & d would be somewhat different for FED rules.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by wyo-referee

my son was the catcher, he didn't have the ball yet, as the throw was in the air coming towards homeplate but up the line, he went up the line and jumped to catch it and had his legs contacted by the runner and then the umpire called the runner out. I don't believe the contact was intentional at all, just two players going in opposite directions to make a play.

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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.