Legality of Pop-Up Slide

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not opening the huge can where anything that the runner does is interference....

And therein lies the conundrum.

We don't penalize a runner for continuing to run toward the base after she's been retired on the front end of a DP, and she ends up unintentionally hindering the pivot person's throw to first base. The onus is on the pivot person to realize the runner is going to be there, and she is expected to do something (e.g., move to her left or right) to clear the runner and make the throw. If she doesn't and her throw hits the approaching runner, it's only interference if the runner did something intentional such as wave her arms.

So why isn't that expectation also deemed applicable here? Does the pop-up slide tip the scale of intent that much more compared to staying in the running path?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And therein lies the conundrum.

We don't penalize a runner for continuing to run toward the base after she's been retired on the front end of a DP, and she ends up unintentionally hindering the pivot person's throw to first base. The onus is on the pivot person to realize the runner is going to be there, and she is expected to do something (e.g., move to her left or right) to clear the runner and make the throw. If she doesn't and her throw hits the approaching runner, it's only interference if the runner did something intentional such as wave her arms.

So why isn't that expectation also deemed applicable here? Does the pop-up slide tip the scale of intent that much more compared to staying in the running path?

For the same reason that a runner who falls while advancing to 2B and stands up into a throw is guilty of INT. The slide is legal. The pop-up is extraneous action that the defense should not be expected to foresee