Interference - Am I missing something?? (Poll)

[NCASAUmp]

Last night, a couple of my fellow umps from our org and I were chatting about interference. Here's one such play that was discussed...

R1 on 1st, no outs. B2 hits the ball to F5, who throws it to F6 on 2nd base. F6 tags 2nd base for force out and positions to throw to F3 at 1st. R1 hookslides into 2nd, his legs coming towards F6's legs. F6 changes his stance to avoid R1, and throws to F3, but the BR beats it in a bang-bang play.

My call would be that R1 hindered F6's ability to make the play, and as such, this is a dead ball, BR2 is also out due to the interference. My fellow umps say that because R1 was "still within reach" of 2nd base, this is not interference.

I say my fellow umps need a few more clinics. I'm actually embarassed to post this question, but they insisted they were right. They even told me, "go post it on that forum and see what they say!" So here it is. Interference or not?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Last night, a couple of my fellow umps from our org and I were chatting about interference. Here's one such play that was discussed...

R1 on 1st, no outs. B2 hits the ball to F5, who throws it to F6 on 2nd base. F6 tags 2nd base for force out and positions to throw to F3 at 1st. R1 hookslides into 2nd, his legs coming towards F6's legs. F6 changes his stance to avoid R1, and throws to F3, but the BR beats it in a bang-bang play.

My call would be that R1 hindered F6's ability to make the play, and as such, this is a dead ball, BR2 is also out due to the interference. My fellow umps say that because R1 was "still within reach" of 2nd base, this is not interference.

I say my fellow umps need a few more clinics. I'm actually embarassed to post this question, but they insisted they were right. They even told me, "go post it on that forum and see what they say!" So here it is. Interference or not?

Speaking ASA

Bad news, bubba. Your partners are correct.

The runner was doing nothing wrong, but sliding toward the base to which he was advancing. As long as it was a slide and within reach of the base, there is no violation. Only way you get INT on this is if the runner tries to kick or whip F6 and that is not indicated in the post. "Take out" slides are not illegal.

[NCASAUmp]

Perhaps I had a different picture in my head about what I was discussing with my partners. What I was picturing was the runner sliding with one foot towards the base with another foot going for F6's legs. I neglected to mention that one of them even said, "yeah, I'd go for his legs to try and break up the double-play." While the runners get their "choice" of how they want to approach the bag, my understanding of INT was that the defense must still be allowed to execute their play as well.

R/S #33: "Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered." If a runner's leg is clearly not going for the base and is going directly to the fielder, hindering him from executing his normal throw, that to me says INT. I consider it to be the same as if the runner had stood straight up when coming into the base, effectively blocking the fielder's throw.

Maybe my OP and what I envisioned in my head (described above) are two different scenarios.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Perhaps I had a different picture in my head about what I was discussing with my partners. What I was picturing was the runner sliding with one foot towards the base with another foot going for F6's legs. I neglected to mention that one of them even said, "yeah, I'd go for his legs to try and break up the double-play." While the runners get their "choice" of how they want to approach the bag, my understanding of INT was that the defense must still be allowed to execute their play as well.

R/S #33: "Defensive players must be given the opportunity to field the ball anywhere on the playing field or throw the ball without being hindered." If a runner's leg is clearly not going for the base and is going directly to the fielder, hindering him from executing his normal throw, that to me says INT. I consider it to be the same as if the runner had stood straight up when coming into the base, effectively blocking the fielder's throw.

Maybe my OP and what I envisioned in my head (described above) are two different scenarios.

Same answer. There is no rule regarding the method in which a player must slide into a base, as long as it is to the base.

[blueump]

Which set of rules were the teams playing by may I ask?

[NSABlue]

I've got to agree with Mike here. If R1 was executing a legal slide and was within reach of the base, I would not call interference.

[CelticNHBlue]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

What I was picturing was the runner sliding with one foot towards the base with another foot going for F6's legs.

That paints a painful picture in my head.

As long as there is an attempt to reach the bag, the slide location is irrelevant.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by blueump

Which set of rules were the teams playing by may I ask?

ASA. It's all I call anymore.

[NCASAUmp]

With all due respect and appreciation to all those posting, can you cite a rule on this? Eventually, this is going to happen, and if I don't call it, someone is going to want to know why.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

With all due respect and appreciation to all those posting, can you cite a rule on this? Eventually, this is going to happen, and if I don't call it, someone is going to want to know why.

Prove a negative? There is no rule to cite as there is no violation.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

With all due respect and appreciation to all those posting, can you cite a rule on this? Eventually, this is going to happen, and if I don't call it, someone is going to want to know why.

Cite RS 13 (Crash Interference), which says plainly, "A runner may slide into the fielder."

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Cite RS 13 (Crash Interference), which says plainly, "A runner may slide into the fielder."

I don't have my book on me, but I shall take your word for it. That's exactly the kind of info I needed. Mucho appreciated.

I both stand and sit corrected. Thanks, all!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I don't have my book on me, but I shall take your word for it. That's exactly the kind of info I needed. Mucho appreciated.

I both stand and sit corrected. Thanks, all!

Since I bought the handy-dandy rule book on CD (plus mechanics simulator) from ASA, I can give you the statement in context without a bunch of typing...

13. CRASHING INTO A FIELDER WITH THE BALL. (INTERFERENCE)
In an effort to prevent injury and protect a defensive player attempting to make a play on a runner, a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag. To prevent the out ruling, the runner may slide, jump over the defender holding the ball, go around the defender or return to the previous base touched. If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender is ejected. A runner may slide into the fielder.

[Dakota]

BTW, NFHS actually includes a definition of an illegal slide in their rule book. You can be pretty sure that if the slide was legal for NFHS, it was legal for ASA (although the inverse may not necessarily be true).

Here is the NFHS definition:

Rule 2: Definitions
Section 52: Slide: Legal, Illegal
Article 2


Art. 2... Illegal Slide. A slide is illegal if:
a. the runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide into the fielder;
b. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position;
c. the runner goes beyond the base and makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder;
d. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or
e. the runner tries to injure the fielder.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

BTW, NFHS actually includes a definition of an illegal slide in their rule book. You can be pretty sure that if the slide was legal for NFHS, it was legal for ASA (although the inverse may not necessarily be true).

Here is the NFHS definition:

What I was envisioning in the described situation sounds more like a combination of C and D. I was envisioning more of a sweep than an "oops, my leg got a little too close." That's why I kept saying INT on this play.