Interference, or no? How many outs?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

RE 1) Yup.

RE 2) The slide was....probably legal. As other posters have pointed out, ASA doesn't define the elements of legality of a slide. The foot was high, but not obviously illegal or malicious. The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see. The runner's foot went directly at the foot of the fielder in the middle portion of the bag. We'd had rain and the bases were slick. The fielder went down like a sack of potatoes. At game speed, it looked bad. Borderline bad. But certainly not enough to eject for MC/USC.

The INT call was probably a kicked call. I won't make it again in this situation.

Based on the description of the play here, I think I would have made the same INT call if it were me.

"The foot was high." and "The runner did not contact the front of the bag." These to me are indications that she was indeed attempting to "take out" the fielder, rather than slide into the base.

The problem is the ASA book does not define a slide, or an illegal slide. This leaves the judgment up to the umpire.

I think your judgment becomes key in this. Was the player attempting to illegally contact the defensive player, thus hindering her attempt to make the throw? If, in your judgment, this was her intent, not just to slide to the base, you were correct in calling interference. I am using Rule Supplement 33 / Definition of Interference as my basis for this decision. The action clearly hindered the fielders attempt to make a throw.

I think, based on the descriptions given, that I would have called the same thing.

Had the runner slide with the foot down and contacted the front part of the base, there is no question, she was sliding into the base, but when she slides and does not contact the front of the base, we get into the area of her intent, and that also brings in the judgment of the umpire.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Based on the description of the play here, I think I would have made the same INT call if it were me.

"The foot was high." and "The runner did not contact the front of the bag." These to me are indications that she was indeed attempting to "take out" the fielder, rather than slide into the base.

The problem is the ASA book does not define a slide, or an illegal slide. This leaves the judgment up to the umpire.

I think your judgment becomes key in this. Was the player attempting to illegally contact the defensive player, thus hindering her attempt to make the throw? If, in your judgment, this was her intent, not just to slide to the base, you were correct in calling interference. I am using Rule Supplement 33 / Definition of Interference as my basis for this decision. The action clearly hindered the fielders attempt to make a throw.

I think, based on the descriptions given, that I would have called the same thing.

Had the runner slide with the foot down and contacted the front part of the base, there is no question, she was sliding into the base, but when she slides and does not contact the front of the base, we get into the area of her intent, and that also brings in the judgment of the umpire.

Please be more specific in your citation of RS 33.

OP clearly noted there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide. It should be noted the sliding into a player during the execution of a play is not illegal in ASA. For that matter, it is a permissible action, by rule, to avoid an INT call for crashing into the fielder with the ball.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Please be more specific in your citation of RS 33.

OP clearly noted there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide. It should be noted the sliding into a player during the execution of a play is not illegal in ASA. For that matter, it is a permissible action, by rule, to avoid an INT call for crashing into the fielder with the ball.

The OP stated that there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide, however he later stated that the

" The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see."

There are two options when sliding. Slide to get to the base, or slide to hinder a defensive player.

The first part of RS#33 states the definition of interference. The key part of this is impedes or hinders. The later description of the slide brings into question if this slide was in fact a slide to reach the base or a slide to impede or hinder the defensive player attempting to make the throw to first base.

As I have said previously, this is a HTBT play, but I am not as comfortable with simply stating no interference on this play as I was with the original post because further description of the play has been provided.

The fact ASA rules don't define illegal slide or legal slide leaves the legality of the slide to the judgment of the umpire.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The OP stated that there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide, however he later stated that the

" The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see."

There are two options when sliding. Slide to get to the base, or slide to hinder a defensive player.

The first part of RS#33 states the definition of interference. The key part of this is impedes or hinders. The later description of the slide brings into question if this slide was in fact a slide to reach the base or a slide to impede or hinder the defensive player attempting to make the throw to first base.

As I have said previously, this is a HTBT play, but I am not as comfortable with simply stating no interference on this play as I was with the original post because further description of the play has been provided.

The fact ASA rules don't define illegal slide or legal slide leaves the legality of the slide to the judgment of the umpire.

Please see RS #13 as mentioned in post #15 of this thread.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The OP stated that there was nothing obviously wrong with the slide, however he later stated that the

" The runner did not contact the front of the bag, and made no effort to do so that I could see."

There are two options when sliding. Slide to get to the base, or slide to hinder a defensive player.

The first part of RS#33 states the definition of interference. The key part of this is impedes or hinders. The later description of the slide brings into question if this slide was in fact a slide to reach the base or a slide to impede or hinder the defensive player attempting to make the throw to first base.

As I have said previously, this is a HTBT play, but I am not as comfortable with simply stating no interference on this play as I was with the original post because further description of the play has been provided.

The fact ASA rules don't define illegal slide or legal slide leaves the legality of the slide to the judgment of the umpire.

There was an attempt to define a slide for ASA a few years back, but no one wanted to hear it and I don't believe the proposal ever left a committee with a positive vote.

But to be honest, this game as been played for 83 years with little issue involving the legal/illegal slide. It has always been relatively simple, if it was nasty, the player was ejected for UC. Same can be said for slides at 2B. Not only is it acceptable, it has been (and probably still is) a taught mechanic for base runners.