Legal slide? Interference?

[Dakota]

This is a softball rules thread, even though the visual aid is from MLB.

Go to MLB.com and view the video of the Upton slide into 2B in the 7th inning of game 1 of the NLCS. 2 runners on base (1B and 2B at the time of the pitch).

If this was a softball game...

Was the slide legal?

Would you have called interference on the retired runner? Why or why not?

If yes, who would have been out?

NOTE: I don't care what the MLB rule is, whether the MLB umpires called it correctly, whether this stuff used to be allowed in MLB, etc., etc. It is just that this play provides a nice visual aid for discussing legal slides, IMO.

[Dakota]

Here is a link to the MLB web site: http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp

I couldn't figure out how to link to just the video of the play in question, but there are two videos on the site. The first is called "Interference call and delay" and the other is called "Breakdown: Interference call".

[NM FP Ump]

Speaking NFHS, I would have R2 out on the force, BR out on the interference, and R2 ejected from the game for malicious contact. That elbow after the slide is the action by R2 that puts me over the top. R2 is allowed to slide into the base, but the contact after the slide is unsportsmanlike, IMO.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is a softball rules thread, even though the visual aid is from MLB.

Go to MLB.com and view the video of the Upton slide into 2B in the 7th inning of game 1 of the NLCS. 2 runners on base (1B and 2B at the time of the pitch).

If this was a softball game...

Was the slide legal?

Would you have called interference on the retired runner? Why or why not?

If yes, who would have been out?

NOTE: I don't care what the MLB rule is, whether the MLB umpires called it correctly, whether this stuff used to be allowed in MLB, etc., etc. It is just that this play provides a nice visual aid for discussing legal slides, IMO.

The moron runner gave a completely different description than what the video showed. He kept saying "slide" and that wasn't even close.

[greymule]

Even though Upton's interference would not have been called in MLB in the past, it is the fourth such INT called in MLB recently. Apparently umpires either decided on their own or were instructed to crack down.

Yes, Upton ludicrously claimed he had simply done the type of pop-up slide that he is "supposed to do."

It was the right call, even in MLB.

But whatever MLB did or does, in Fed, ASA, NCAA, definitely a double play. "Malicious contact" applies only in Fed (which I have not done for years), but I would not have ejected a runner for doing what Upton did. Nor would I have ejected the runner in ASA or NCAA.

In ASA and NCAA, the only question would be if there had been no play whatsoever at first (or anywhere else)—not whether the runner would have been safe, but simply no expected throw (such as on a slow roller in which a double play is obviously not going to be possible).

[SWFLguy]

Correct yet "gutsy" call !
I made a similar call in a men's ASA Slo-Pitch game years ago
and what a row that created. At least I didn't have people tossing
bottles from the seats.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

Even though Upton's interference would not have been called in MLB in the past, it is the fourth such INT called in MLB recently. Apparently umpires either decided on their own or were instructed to crack down.

Earlier this season, the Phillies had such a slide executed against them and the umpire did not make the call. They raised all sorts of hell in the media and MLB.

The following weeks, there was another play similar that the umpire didn't hesitate to rule interference and it has occurred a few times since and the umpires are taking this call in stride.

I believe what people who don't understand the calls are confused, including the players. Because in the past players were allowed the occasional wide slide or a (bent) leg just high enough to catch the fielders feet, I think the players believe they can do anything they want and it has gotten out of control. Breaking up a double play is part of the game, but these guys have made it obvious, VERY OBVIOUS the they are not attempting to reach the base, but are on a mission to make physical contact with their arms and hands with the defender which couldn't be miscontrued by Mr. Magoo as an effort to reach the base.

IOW, it has gotten to the point of absurdity where the umpires don't have much of a choice. BTW, none of the INT calls made that I have seen on replay could be mistaken for anything other then INT.

[SRW]

I had almost the same play yesterday between two 18-gold teams. I was the BU behind F4, F6 fields the ball, takes 3 or 4 steps towards 2B, touches the 3B side of 2B bag, and R1 slides to the inside of the bag, taking F6 out completely. I look over at BR2, who was about 2 steps away from 1B. There was no question in my mind this was obviously intended to break up the double play - dead ball, 2 outs.

It was instinctive... like "you know it when you see it" kind of play. OC wanted me to "check with my partner"... uh, coach, my partner was 80 feet away. It's my call, and my partner's not going to have any information that would make me change my call. We're done.

Since that ended the inning, I trot out to my spot on the OF grass, and the coach follows me, still arguing at me "What do you want us to do, go in standing up?"

"Coach, that would be unsportsmanlike conduct, and if one of your runners do that, she and you will be ejected."

No more chirping from the OC for the rest of the game. Probably because they wound up winning 7-0.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

I had almost the same play yesterday between two 18-gold teams. I was the BU behind F4, F6 fields the ball, takes 3 or 4 steps towards 2B, touches the 3B side of 2B bag, and R1 slides to the inside of the bag, taking F6 out completely. I look over at BR2, who was about 2 steps away from 1B. There was no question in my mind this was obviously intended to break up the double play - dead ball, 2 outs.

Speaking ASA

Hang on, Sean. Like you said, you knew it when you saw it and neither I or anyone else can argue about your call. You didn't mention it, so I would have to assume F6 was in a position to throw to 1B or you wouldn't have a play.

However, I just want to make sure we are clear here. There is no rule forbidding a player from attempting to break up a double play. The rule forbids interference. That means you must have INT before you can rule another runner out. A good, clean slide to the base regardless of the side is an accepted play in this game as long as there is no act of INT.

If you get to "well, my fielder couldn't do this or that because...", we'll be expected to rule INT on damn near any play.

In your play, let's assume it wasn't obvious this may have been a take out slide. The coach could claim that the runner slid to the inside to avoid F6 who should have been coming across the base to relay the throw to 1B. When I was playing, if the SS was making the throw to 1B, I'm sliding to the outfield side of 2B. I would be a good, clean hook slide with my arms guarding my face (we wore metal spikes).

Not questioning your call, just raising an issue which I believe should be considered.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

Hang on, Sean. Like you said, you knew it when you saw it and neither I or anyone else can argue about your call. You didn't mention it, so I would have to assume F6 was in a position to throw to 1B or you wouldn't have a play.

Absolutely...she was not only in the process of making the step on the bag, but her arm was up and about to throw the ball....that's why I looked over to see where the BR was, and where F3 was... resulting in the judgement of "is there a play to be made here?" My answer was yes.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, I just want to make sure we are clear here. There is no rule forbidding a player from attempting to break up a double play. The rule forbids interference. That means you must have INT before you can rule another runner out. A good, clean slide to the base regardless of the side is an accepted play in this game as long as there is no act of INT.

I'm very clear on this rule.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not questioning your call, just raising an issue which I believe should be considered.

Understood.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hang on, Sean.

BTW, what's with the recent use of my name vs. my profile name?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

BTW, what's with the recent use of my name vs. my profile name?

Because I don't know how to pronounce 'SRW'. And it hasn't been that recent. Why to folks refer to me as Mike (at least, to my face )?