Holiday Slide - Legal or Not?
 

MLB.com Must C | Must C Collision: Holliday slides into Scutaro - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia
What say you? I am a Giants fan, so I will provide my biased, emotional opinion. Illegal slide, I have 2 outs.

Illegal slide in every level except this one. I, for one, wish MLB would adopt OBR rules. No, really - actually adopt them and not allow these kinds of collisions (both on DP's and on plate plays).

But in MLB, until things change - there was nothing wrong with this slide. Mattie gets one in the earhole next year, and we move on.

At Babe Ruth and FED games, I'm calling an illegal slide. At MLB level, the pitcher drills him in the ribs the next day and we play on.

In FED / NCAA games, this is a violation of the FPSR. First contact was made beyond the base.

But in MLB? It was a good, hard slide. And I disagree with the posts above -- nobody is going to take one in the ear hole for that slide. Those guys accept that it's the way the game's played.

There is slim to none rule support to call this slide illegal, in MLB. The middle infielders know that there is a potential for contact on the double play, so they need to take some responsibility for avoiding getting hurt. When you stay on the bag, you risk getting hit. Did Holliday slide late, yes. Did he use a rolling body block in an attempt to break up the double play and take out the pivot man, yes. I do not believe it was malicious, with the intent to injure. IF we see this in NFHS/NCAA or any other level of amateur ball, we will call it.

As for 'putting one in his ear hole', that is not appropriate. There is a MAJOR difference between contact on a double play and hitting a batter intentionally with a pitch. Scutaro has a sore hip and leg, he played on, and got his revenge. Hitting someone with a baseball could end a career or worse.

I agree. I thought the Giant's response was perfect. Keep playing ball and let the bats do the talking.

NOT a violation in NCAA. In NCAA you can go straight through the base. There's a diagram illustrating it.

Perhaps. But players have long memories.

Yes, you can go through the base. But, you need to have a legal slide to do so. This wasn't (at that level).

I'm not suggesting they do so (like they are listening to me anyway). But this is the common reply to a perceived dirty play. We'd have seen it last night if this was not a playoff game. I'm not advocating it, but I'm expecting it.

True but the rolling over instead of remaining in a slide makes this no longer legal.

Force-play slide rule
 

It was an illegal side.
"Illegal slide (rule 2-32) Interpretation is that the runner must be able to reach the base with a hand or foot or it is interference. Can't roll block or throw cross body block "
View the slow-mo here
2012 MLB Postseason | NLCS Game 2: Cardinals on Holliday's slide - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia
An obvious body block.
The base runner should have been ejected.

I love playoff time on the forum.

Ejected? This isn't a kiddie game here.

Oh, there's a violation here. The path is the width of the base only and the contact is slightly to the left of the baseline -- with the contact occurring behind the base in this manner, I'm not giving the runner an inch of leeway. I'd call this in a heartbeat and feel quite good about it.

Just for my benefit, what are you quoting here?

Looked like a slide to me. He landed on his hip and stayed down through contact. A roll block or body block usually entails a runner staying high and/or rolling over so that he's basically hitting the fielder with his shoulders or back.

That is a FED rule quote

It's not FED. It's from the MLBUM.

That's what I thought, but I don't have my MLBUM handy.

I still don't see a rolling block. Look at the super slo-mo replay starting at 0:36 of the video. He hits Scoot with his chest while keeping his hip down on the ground.

Here are the Guidelines under 6.3 Willful And Deliberate Interference:

In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.

A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called.

Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.

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.

Wrong. It is a violation in NCAA baseball.

Yep.

Yep. The NCAA put a video bulletin out this year that emphasizes that the runner's legs and torso have to go straight into the base. This is a blatant FPSR violation at the FED and NCAA level.

Technically, this would be legal at Babe Ruth. There is only a collision/malicious contact rule on plays at home plate.

Although at the BR level, I would use rule 9 to get an unsportsmanlike ejection.

I'll admit -- my original post was lacking in the details I wanted to put in there and was wrong at face value. That said, the play was clearly an NCAA FPSR violation.

Mike, I can see where full-up adoption of 7.09e would penalize this play on a DP. But what rule in OBR, if adopted as you lament, would prohibit a scoring runner from crashing into the catcher?

You are correct, I saw the dash (excuse the pun) and thought FED.

This play contained neither a roll block or cross body block.

So your saying the rules allow them to play however, your going to find a way to interject yourself into the game, contrary to the rules. What other rules do you think BR would like you to interpret for them.

This video angers me. There was nothing about that slide that was an attempt to get to the base. The defensive player was beyond the bag and the "slide" was not for any reason but to try to break up a double play.

I realize the pros do things differently but making a lot of money shouldn't excuse unnecessary violent collisions.

In the games I do, there would be two outs and an ejection.

Rita

And, as you know Rita, there is nothing illegal about that in straight-up OBR.

Two things to look for:
1. Could Holliday reach the bag? Yes he could. In fact, he hit the top of the base with his leg.
2. Was there a cross body block or rolling block? Most agree here that there wasn't.

If Holliday had executed the exact same slide with Scutaro on either side of the bag, and Holliday could reach the bag with his hand, nobody would say a peep. The same is true had Scutaro been in front (first base side) of the base. So why should it be any different on the back side of the base?

The only anomaly, if you will, is that Holliday started his slide on top of the bag, not in front or to the side. But nothing in OBR makes that illegal. Heck, he could've started a slide after he passed over the bag, and as long as he could reach back and touch the bag with his hand while sliding, he meets the rule requirement.

Yeah, there's no doubt what he was intending on doing. And if Scutaro had leaped over Holliday, or even gotten up right away after the contact, there would have been no outcries. But because Scutaro got hurt, people want to scream "ILLEGAL!" especially Giants fans who still have the Posey incident fresh in their memories.

Why? Why would you, the umpire, allow yourself to be angry at all?

I work small college and HS varsity and an ejection would never even cross my mind. His intent isn't to injure -- it's to break up the double play. It's a FPSR violation and I'm getting 2 outs, but it's nothing more in my mind.

Explain why he did not violate the underlined part.

I agree, emotions have little to do with this. If your employer and the rules you officiate by allow this to happen, (whether it was good or bad, viscious or not), then you are paid to enforce accordingly.

Because I think it should be illegal.

Maybe it's the mom in me.

Rita

No there isn't an intent to hurt anyone. But that means nothing. Because, if nothing else, they are relying on the fear of getting hurt to break up the double play.

Rita

And I would, if I were officiating there.

Doesn't mean I would have to like it.

And my emotions are for me here in my easy chair at my laptop.

Rita

My question to you is: Why would you care?

I don't tend to like or dislike things like this. I just call it the way I'm told.

That explanation would be two sentences you didn't underline (the last two).

It was (MLB) borderline, I'll give you that.

IMHO, pro runners violate the underlined part all the time. What really gets violated is the part I highlighted in red. They'll hook-slide away from the base, are able to reach the base with the hand, but make no attempt at staying on. Perhaps they're given the benefit of the doubt that they tried to stay on but their momentum carried them past it.

Regardless, they are rarely called out for doing what you've underlined when it's a more routine take-out slide (left or right side of the base). This slide was not so routine because it took place on top of and then beyond the base.

I wasn't aware illegal slide was in rule 2.

The numbering convention in the MLBUM has nothing to do with the OBR numbers.

Because I'm not like you, Rich.

Rita

The part you put in red is only applicable on a roll block.

I'm a little confused by this. In what leagues is this an ejection? Or, is it an ejection only because you think it should be illegal? (and to be clear, I'm asking sincereely -- to seek clarification. Not in any accusatory sense.)

I agree it's two outs in FED and NCAA (and probably most other leagues that have adopted some sort of FPSR).

I can see this being considered malicious contact in FED.

I don't think this would be considered malicious in FED. In FED, I'd have a FPSR violation.

If you call this MC in FED, you're a plumber.

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)?

Yeah, based on some of the FED guys I've seen work, I'd think there would be people who would call this MC too. (Not that I agree)

A couple of thoughts/questions on some recent posts.

1) What part of this slide was NOT a cross body block? Just curious, because Holliday made contact with the side of his body, hip area, as I see it. There was actual no slide per se, just a sideways dive into the player behind the bag and incidental contact with the bag.

2) This to me, was not an attempt to injure. I could see some calling it MC for FED, not in NCAA. I have FPSR violations in both though. The part that borders on MC for ME is the fact that the target for the runner was the player trying to turn the DP, not the bag. Incidental contact is where the runner slides into the base using a 'normal' feet first slide and then contacts the fielder within the confines of the rule. In my opinion, there is no place for a 'take out' slide in FED, at any base, in any situation.

Then it wasn't MC

Incidental contact = legal contact

Illegal contact = interference (that's the FPSR, although contact isn't needed in all cases to have an illegal slide)

MC = intent to injure.

Um ... what do you think MC means?

Malicious is a real word. It has a real meaning. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It comes from the word MALICE. Inherent in "malicious" is the INTENT to injure. Malicious does not mean violent - it means with the intent to harm.

I didn't say I would call MC, did I ? I said it 'bordered' on it. There are some that would call it MC, I know that. There is an aspect of umpire judgement that comes to play in this case, correct?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Crashing baseman?
 

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."

Who or what are you quoting?

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.