How would you handle this

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

First thing, your interpretation does not agree with the interpretation we have been given (not that I completely agree) The justification is rule 8-6-13. The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her.

The key part of the rule is does not legally slide (as opposed to illegally slides). By wording this rule in this way, it allows the runner not to slide. By adding the and causes illegal contact to the rule it allows a runner to not slide, but puts the onus on said runner not to illegally contact the runner.

(Part of the issue is our association has a couple lawyers who analyze everything from a legal standpoint).

If this is how your association is interpreting, then they are off base (pardon the pun). As you 8-6-13 the runner is "never required to slide."

The illegal contact is part of an illegal slide, period. For an illegal slide, there must be a slide (and defined in 2-52-2). In your case, there was no slide, therefore it cannot be an illegal slide (and illegal contact), therefore cannot fall under 8-6-13. I can see this, and my only law training is multiple reruns of Law and Order. And this is in light being . . .

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.