Slide... Crash
 

Runner coming home, catcher (in possession of the ball) blocking the plate. Runner slides- maybe the cleats catch or something, I don't know- but she comes back up (unintentionally in my opinion) & they meet, hard enough to take out the catcher & send the ball rolling.
I have an out; without the crash, there's no dropped ball. No intent, so no ejection.

No question here, really... guess it's a HTBT situation, but just because she slid, she still didn't avoid the crash, so... right call?

What is she being called out for?

In ASA, the infraction requires the runner to remain on his/her feet (no attempt to slide whatsoever) and run into the fielder. It doesn't sound like that's what you had.

What about players having to control their moves and bodies?
What about the runner being on her feet for the collison (if I read it correctly)?

I can't find that rule...
In the OP, the player is not on their feet.

Then I read it wrong. Or is it wrongly ? ;) :)

To clarify a little, foot-first slide, her cleats grabbed the ground, brought her back to upright on her knees, where she met face-to-face with the catcher (also on her knees, set up for the tag), crash. Catcher sent beyond the plate, ball rolls away, runner ends up on all fours on the plate.

Then for sure I don't have a violation. She cannot be faulted for having her cleats catch something that aborts her slide and causes her to essentially start a tumble. If the catcher wasn't there, she undoubtedly would have landed face-first onto the ground. Also, when contact was made with the catcher, the runner was on her knees, not completely upright on her feet.

Again, a crash is when a runner simply fails to do anything and she runs straight-up into the catcher when the catcher has the ball and is making a tag. Your runner tried to execute a slide, and because of something that caught her feet, she catapulted into the catcher while on her knees. Play on.

Stop! It's the catcher's fault? What does the possible result sans catcher have to do with the play?

Of course, the runner can be faulted for having here spikes catch something, SHE'S THE RUNNER! If she doesn't know how to slide, she shouldn't and if one knows how to slide, the spikes should never catch anything other than the base or defender.

Obviously, HTBT and from what I've read, this is nothing, but please stop trying to find justifying excuses for the players.

I never faulted the catcher, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I said that if the catcher wasn't there, the runner would have continued forward and landed face-first. In fact from the description, she would have continued forward from her knees, never rising to her feet. There's no crash without a runner being on her feet.

Not a violation, but your reasoning brings way too much inconsequential consideration into it. She's not out simply because she did not break a rule. We don't have to figure out what would have happened if something else hadn't happened - this is not an obstruction situation... This is simply a runner not doing anything that warrants an out.

I kind of took it that way too. If you weren't saying that to fault the catcher ... then why did you mention the catcher at all. It doesn't matter what the runner would have or would not have done.

Also - you use "crash" like it's a term we should be looking for. "Crash" is not illegal (in fact, when it IS used properly, it really means a collision for which neither party is at fault --- kind of the opposite of what you're implying)

More precisely, there's no interference in this play.

For the reasons MD pointed out, let's take out the word crash and the whole 'cleats catching thing' here.
I'm assuming at this point in the thread that you're in agreement (as am I) that there's no interference here on the part of the runner.

Being devil's advocate, and going back to the sitch....

Catcher in possession of the ball blocking the plate, runner slides, comes back up (IYO unintentionally), they meet hard enough to take out the catcher and send the ball rolling. "I have an out."

The ball is on the ground. We've established here that there was no interference on the part of the runner. OC comes out to argue the call. How do/would you handle the argument?

I merely brought up the catcher to provide some illustrative explanation as to why the runner did nothing wrong here that would warrant an out called due to a crash. The criteria needed to judge a crash are that the runner remains on her feet and contacts the fielder while upright. If the catcher wasn't present, the runner would not have met them, that's all. I'm not suggesting that you need to somehow factor in the catcher's presence to determine if there's a violation.

And the reason I use the word "crash" is because that is what is used in ASA 8-7Q and in RS #13. Yes, at the end of the day what we're really judging is whether or not the runner interferes with the fielder.

My reasoning is that, while there is no "must slide", there is a slide, avoid, or surrender-whatever is needed to avoid a collision-that didn't happen here. Catcher had the ball, was waiting to apply the tag, and the collision took her out.
I misused the term "crash". I see "crash" as the unfortunate case of ball, fielder, and runner all meeting at the same time, and no INT or OBS is called.
At game speed, this was my rationale, and it's what I explained to the OC.

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)