Local Rule question

[chapmaja]

I had the following play a couple weeks ago.

R1 at 1b, B2 hits a ground ball to F4 who attempts to flip to F6 for a force. F6does not have her foott on the base, and as a result is forced to make a swipe tag attempt at R1's leg, which she tags just after R1's foot touches 2B.

This seems like a clear cut safe.

This is the league rule.

"On close plays at any base except first base, the runner shall slide or give themselves up. A player can be called out and even removed from the game if the umpire feels that the contact should have been avoided."
The bolded part is bolded in the rule.

Based on this rule, I call the runner out for not sliding.

It wasn't until today, looking for a weather related rule (after an issue last night) that I took a closer look at that rule.

The bolded part seems clear, but the unbolded part actually seems to add a lot of additional information to the rule.

I am not thinking I should not have called her out because the only contact was actually the tag being applied by the fielder. What say the forum. For the record, the offensive coach had no issue with the call and let his player know very clearly she should have slid.

[Dakota]

I think your second thought is a correct way to read the rule, but I suspect that is not how "everyone" understands it. IOW, I suspect you would've gotten an ear full from the DC had you ruled her safe.

Editorial: Anecdotally, (i.e. I have no data to back this up...) the act of sliding is responsible for more injuries, and in most cases more serious injuries, than collisions at bases between runner and fielder. And, yet, rules like this continue to exist for "safety" reasons.

[CecilOne]

No one will be surprised if I say "LRAMBF".
But in this case, I'll assume "close play" is defined somewhere in the local rules.


May I also say that if it should have been a force, the runner had no way to know it would be close.

[BoomerSooner]

I think it is interesting how this rule is written..."On close plays..."

On the plays that aren't close, the runner isn't restricted to this rule? Obviously malicious contact is covered under normal rules, but other types of contact that could occur on close plays is fair game?

Seriously though, I don't think the contact the rule is trying to govern is contact that results as part of the defender trying to make a tag. I think it is the league's way to try to prevent major collisions or interference with double-play attempts.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

No one will be surprised if I say "LRAMBF".
But in this case, I'll assume "close play" is defined somewhere in the local rules.


May I also say that if it should have been a force, the runner had no way to know it would be close.

Come on, defining close plays in the league rules would be too simple.

That would not make them the F in LRAMBF.

No, it is not defined, but then the throw and runner arrive at nearly the same time, I would tend to think that is a close play.

I did have an argument with a coach that nearly resulted in an ejection because of a "close play" in her judgment that I did not call a close play. Passed ball, runner at third is sprinting home, the catcher goes back, attempted to flip the ball to the pitcher covering. The problem is the throw hit the runner while the pitcher was still about 5 feet in front of the plate. The ball hit the runner on her last step before she reached the plate.

[MD Longhorn]

I'm thinking your 2nd thought is more likely how I would have ruled. It seems they leave it completely up to you as to whether to call the out or not, but the judgement hinges on whether the contact could have been avoided, and I think the situation you describe doesn't really include the kind of contact (getting tagged on the leg) that one would normally want to punish.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm thinking your 2nd thought is more likely how I would have ruled. It seems they leave it completely up to you as to whether to call the out or not, but the judgement hinges on whether the contact could have been avoided, and I think the situation you describe doesn't really include the kind of contact (getting tagged on the leg) that one would normally want to punish.

I think the biggest issue we have in the league is the rules bolded portion is the only portion people read (including myself until the other day). This is why there was no objection to the call of her being out. In fact, on that play the coach even asked me if she was just out for the play or was ejected. Apparently some umpires being used by the league were ejecting players for not sliding on a close play. I almost started to laugh when he asked if she was ejected because I couldn't fathom any way, shape or form where she would be ejected on that play. I told him I had enough of a problem with calling her out (which actually was not the correct call the way the rule is worded, when you read the entire rule).

[Tru_in_Blu]

We have a local rule in Men's slow pitch that reads as follows:

A continuous batting order will be used during the playoffs. All players in attendance will be in the batting order. However, the team with the most players has the option to bat the same number of players as the team with less players. All remaining players will be substitutes. During the playoffs a team can play with as few as 9 players but the 10 slot will be an out each time in the order.

If a player is injured during the game or needs to leave the game for any other reason, this will not be an out in the order unless a team drops to 9 players. Integrity must be used at all times.

The situation we had was that the team with more players, therefore 2 or 3 substitutes, had their number 2 batter get injured. The coach ultimately did utilize one of his subs, but wanted to simply skip the injured player in the batting lineup. This would not result in an out per their bylaw and have the benefit of not having to put a less prolific offensive player into the No. 2 slot.

ASA shorthanded rule stipulates that if playing shorthanded and a substitute arrives, that player must enter the game or be ineligible for the rest of the game. It's not exactly how the above played out, but the logic seems to fit. That, and the "integrity" statement included in the bylaw.

Any comments?

[3afan]

I would bet that statistically, more players are injured sliding than in collisions ... and I bet its not close.

[wrigleywannabe]

WE did away with our slide rule a few years ago, in part, because of a case in a HS game where a runner slide and was injured, I believe a broken leg or something similar.

The family sued. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but they won.

More or less, it was a case where he slid only because of the rule stating he had to on a close play.

I'm assuming the court ruled the rule was too vague and resulted in the injury

The other part we dumped it was because there is so much variety between umps in what is close and not close.

I once saw a runner cross home plate as the ball is bouncing through the circle. The catcher had taken a couple steps up in front of the plate to clear out of the way.

It was obvious there was no play, yet the umpire called her out.

Our rule now says that runners must make an attempt to avoid a collision. That can be sliding, trying to go around, pulling up, etc.

It's worked out without any issues at all for three years or so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by wrigleywannabe

Our rule now says that runners must make an attempt to avoid a collision. That can be sliding, trying to go around, pulling up, etc.

It's worked out without any issues at all for three years or so.

Wow, by the book !