Holiday Slide - Legal or Not?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Rita C

I do Little League (and some high school). I see intent to take out the second baseman, which may be not be illegal in the bigs, but translates to malicious contact for me at the levels I do.

Rita

That might a stretch in FED. Can you enforce FPSR, and malicious contact I suppose would be the better question. I can see that, but most likely not on a play of this type.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Explain your thought process on that. What about that slide would make calling MC correct but nitpicking (or, alternatively, how do you define being a plumber)?

I don't think there is any way calling MC is correct in this situation, even in FED. I believe there are guys out there, like johnnyg said, that would call MC, but I don't believe it to be correct.

Originally Posted by Welpe

I have this same question. If this is not a cross body block, what is an example of one (serious question)?

I've kind of been pondering this myself as well. If this isn't a cross body block, then what is?

[MD Longhorn]

That's been answered.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

From the MLBUM

The initial contact was with the ground, not the fielder. He hit the dirt, slid, and rolled. The exact thing they are saying is NOT a roll block.

[RPatrino]

No, the initial contact was with the player and the base, the ground was not contacted until after or once contact had been made. There was no slide ahead of the base, or anything that resembled a slide by any normal definition, prior to contact or simultaneously made with contact.

[SAump]

He's allowed to crash in MLB. He is not allowed to crash in NCAA or FED.

The slide may have been legal, but the upper body, arms wailing out toward the baseman was not legal. Given the slide over the bag, directly into the player, I would eject him for crashing into the baseman. I have Interference, intentionally slashing with his arms and upper body while trying to trip up the second baseman.

More like reckless indifference or deliberate blindness, while causing injury to another person.

"the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SAump

"the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result."

Who or what are you quoting?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

No, the initial contact was with the player and the base, the ground was not contacted until after or once contact had been made. There was no slide ahead of the base, or anything that resembled a slide by any normal definition, prior to contact or simultaneously made with contact.

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Who or what are you quoting?

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

No, the initial contact was with the player and the base, the ground was not contacted until after or once contact had been made.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by manny a

oh, so now you're suggesting that the base is not part of the ground. Hmmm, and all this time...

+1

[RPatrino]

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

+1