This is what I saw too. He grazed the base with his leg as he went to the ground, but he contacted the fielder before he started any kind of slide on the ground.

Oh, so now you're suggesting that the base is NOT part of the ground. Hmmm, and all this time... ;)

+1

So, that's the new way to teach 'sliding'? Jump on the base and then zero in on the second baseman? Okee Dokee ;)

+1

The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball Blog :: Ruiz-Giles and the rules on taking out the double play

John Bean | 30-Aug-07 at 5:25 am | Permalink
On Aug 29 the Mets lost a run when Marlon Anderson intefered with the 2nd baseman who was attempting a throw to first. In doing so he was incontact with the base but he did deliver a shot with his arms to knock over the fielder. If he had not raised and hit the fielder wiht his arms I believe he would not have been called for interference.

-------------
Again the hard slide was legal only at the MLB level. The contact with the upper half of his body in a half pike position with his arms extended out to swipe at the 2nd baseman was not legal at any level. This may have been called interference. At the NCAA level and below, umpires may eject players for flagrant interference in regard to the collision rule.

The legal MLB hard slide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rirvz...e_gdata_player

Mlbum 6.3
 

The MLB standard guideline is willful and deliberate interference on an obvious attempt to break up a double play. That's not the same guideline governing the collision at home plate.

If the umpire judges that the runner willfully and deliberately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play, the umpire shall declare both the runner and the batter-runner out.
OBR 7.09e.

Example 2. Runner on first and third, no outs. Runner on first is stealing as batter hits a ground ball to shortstop. Anticipating a double play, runner from first intentionally rolls into and grabs the second baseman who is covering second and waiting for the throw from the shortstop.
Ruling: Runner on first willfully and deliberately interfered with a fielder with the obvious attempt to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play. Runner from first is declared out and so is the batter-runner. Runner returns to third.

Please explain how, " I was just trying to take out the second basemen to prevent the double play", is different from " willfully and deliberately interfered with the obvious intent to deprive the defense of the opportunity to make a double play".

If the rule is enforced as written, every time the SS/2b is knocked down at second base during a double play attempt, it is 'willful and deliberate', no?

Because the OFFICIAL MLB interpretation says it is not.

Why is everyone having such a hard time with this? This isn't kiddie ball- it's pro grown-ups.

The hard time I am having is the inconsistency between the written rule and it's enforcement. If MLB wants contact in their game, then write the rules to include it.

Interference is defined by the guidelines in the MLBUM, not by a dictionary. It tells us that certain acts of interference are legal (i.e., not interference). Specifically, it says if the runner stays within reach of the base, and hits the ground before contacting the fielder, it is not a roll block (not interference) even if he wipes out the fielder. It doesn't matter that it was a deliberate attempt to deprive the defense of a double play.

Dash, I was quoting the MLB rules, posted by a previous poster. I don't think a dictionary would help this.

I have no problem with how this rule was enforced in this particular situation, we aren't talking about 'kiddie' ball or school aged players here. However, I am always of the opinion that when rules are too broadly written and need pages and pages of case plays and interpretations to make them enforcable, then they probably should be re written. The proof is when you have 10 people look at the same act and get about 50% agreement on the proper enforcement. Perhaps that is the 'human' element of officiating?

Don't know about everyone, but my view of the play is that it does violate the guideline in the MLBUM:1)The runner wasn't sliding to a base: he started too late for that.
2)After the slide was finished, he may have been able to reach back and touch the base with his hand, although he made no attempt to. But that is only because he used F4 to stop his slide. So it wasn't a bona fide effort to stay on the base.

"Grown up" baseball isn't what it used to be. No question in my mind that 25 years ago, the ruling on the field would have been the same as it was in this game--no interference. And the runner would have paid for it in the batter's box, with no comment from the umpires. But in today's world, with warnings, ejections, and suspensions, the approach of "letting the players take care of it" is impractical, especially during the playoffs.

Since the players can't police it themselves, MLB umpires need to narrow the envelope of bona fide effort.