force slide rule?

[wyo-referee]

I'm a football guy, but last night in my son's game (babe ruth league) runner was going home and throw forced catcher up the line(15ft) to catch it. Catcher jumps to catch ball and runner collides with his legs. Umpire calls runner out for not sliding/avoiding catcher. Is this the correct call?

[mbyron]

The short answer is: it's very hard to know.

Here's the rule: the relevant rule is not the force play slide rule, but rather the rule that says a runner must slide or avoid contact with a fielder who has the ball. It's not clear from your description that this rule applies to your case: at the moment of collision, the fielder did not have the ball or had not had it for long.

Also, the runner might have been trying to avoid a collision, but the throw took the catcher into his path. In that case, he has not violated the rule, and it's just what what we call a train wreck.

But if the fielder had the ball and the runner did not avoid contact and did not slide, then it would be a correct call. That's very hard to know without seeing the play.

[jicecone]

First of all, I do not know of ANY league that has a MUST SLIDE rule. Most rules say avoid or slide, and if you slide that there is criteria that needs to be adhereed to, to make it legal.

Having said that there is no way we can know exactly what took place at your son's game. Did the catcher jump up into the path of the runner? Did the runner try to take the catchers legs out? Was it just incidental contact and they were both doing what they were supposed to?

It is logical that if the runner was NOT avoiding the catcher that he would collide with his legs rather than his midsection, because the catcher jumped. If that was the case then I agree with the call.

Ask your son, what his intentions were?

[JRutledge]

HTBT situation. Unless there is a rule in Babe Ruth that talks about some slide rule differently than it is at the NF or NCAA level, then not sure how a runner could be out for what you describe.

Peace

[ozzy6900]

If the league is playing by real Babe Ruth rules, there is no FPSR. Many leagues add this for safety and all it means that the runner does not have to slide, but if the runner chooses to slide he must do so legally.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.