http://forum.officiating.com/softbal...hat-crash.html

Also, is it staying on her feet if there is a head first dive into the fielder?

What do you mean it didn't happen here? The runner DID slide. You even said so in your OP. It was either a really crappy slide, or there was something on the field that caused her not to complete the slide as expected.

What she didn't do was remain on her feet the whole time and then come into contact with the catcher. That's what 8-7Q penalizes. The rule and accompanying RS#13 are designed to prevent a runner from just running through the fielder, regardless if it's done with intent to dislodge the ball and/or hurt the fielder, inadvertent negligence, desire not to get dirty, or just ignorance of the rule.

Now, if your runner had slipped and fallen some 10-15 feet short of home, and then got up and collided with the catcher as she continued, that may be a different story. But you said this runner slid and then popped up on her knees almost simultaneously to when she contacted the catcher. That doesn't constitute a violation, IMHO.

Not only would I have an 8-7Q violation, but I would have an USC ejection for basically spearing the catcher.

As umpires, we must be careful not to insert our own personal views of fairness into the game, when we already have rules that tell us what to call. In this case, the softball rules makers have had ample opportunity to revise their rules if what you seem to want to do was what THEY want to do. They have not. They DO not. "whatever is needed to avoid a collision" is not the rule, nor is it the intent of the rule. Collisions happen. The one you describe is NOT meant to be penalized.

That's why I posted this- to find out if my interp was correct.

In an older thread on this forum, a catcher (not in possession) is plowed over by a runner coming home. Verdict: run scores, ejection for USC, nothing in the rules calls for an out. The rationale being, when the catcher has possession, it is assumed she would have made the out had she not been plowed into, so the out is called when there is possession.

I may be grasping at straws here, but in PONY rules (humor me for a moment) it states, "if there is a slide, it shall be a legal slide". In the current thread, I'm inferring that there is no such conclusion as stated in the OP.

As always, I appreciate the lively discussion, and I'm a better ump for it.

OC: "But ump, my runner did slide...."

You said in your OP that the runner did slide....so how can you tell the OC that the bolded part did not occur and that's the reason for his runner being called out?

In your situation, are you saying the slide was illegal? Why?

You quote the PONY rule. Do they define an illegal slide?

ASA doesn't.

NFHS does. Here it is:
Did your runner do any of those?

Nope...

nothing more than bad technique (on both of our parts)... guess I must have been looking too hard for an out.

+1.
Nice job on your part in learning and improving from what happened on the play.
BTW, given the circumstances and your understanding of the rule and interp at the time, it sounds to me like you handled the OC just fine....which is a big part of our job.
The feedback you received from your post has obviously provided you some additional perspective beyond the applicable rule itself that I'm sure will serve you well down the line.

You are citing ASA rules on obstruction/crash. NFHS rules do call for an out via Malicious contact (with or without possession)