Slide... Crash

[jmkupka]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

What is she being called out for?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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?

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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)?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What about players having to control their moves and bodies?

I can't find that rule...

What about the runner being on her feet for the collison (if I read it correctly)?

In the OP, the player is not on their feet.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

In the OP, the player is not on their feet.

Then I read it wrong. Or is it wrongly ?

[jmkupka]

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.

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?

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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?

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.

[CecilOne]

What is a crash?

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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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

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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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...

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.

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.

[jmkupka]

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

...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 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:

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

Did your runner do any of those?