Legality of Pop-Up Slide

[Manny A]

FED game. R1 and R2 on second and first. Defense tries to execute a 6-4-3 double play. The throw from F4 bounces to first base, and the BR easily beats it.

Offensive head coach requests Time and goes over to my partner on the bases. I'm not sure what prompted the discussion, but as the coach trots back to the dugout, he looks my way and asks me, "Didn't you see the runner pop up after her slide and bump my second baseman?" I honestly didn't see it since I had glanced at third to see R1's touch of the bag, just in case she tried to score on the play. I asked my partner later in the game between innings, and he said he didn't see anything wrong with the play at second.

I went into the rule book after the game, and checked the definition of slide and illegal slide in 2-52. I didn't see anything that said a pop-up slide was illegal. The closest is 2-52c, where it says a runner cannot go beyond the base and make contact with the fielder. But this runner never went "beyond the base".

So, should R1 have been ruled out for what R2 did here? Or was this perfectly legal? And how does it apply to other rule sets (ASA and NCAA)?

[AtlUmpSteve]

It is a legal slide. So the slide itself may not be interference under 8-6-13.

But that is only part of the question, I would think. Did an already-retired runner interfere with the defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner 8-6-18? Once the slide part is done, the pop-up is a separate and intentional action that needs to be considered. We say the runner is expected to try to be safe, and isn't required to give up; but the pop-up has nothing to do with trying to get to the base safely. The pop-up is to be able to continue to a NEXT base on an overthrow, OR just to disconcert (or interfere with) the defensive player.

Not opening the huge can where anything that the runner does is interference. And we would expect this one to be you would know it when you see it. But if the legal slide then results in a pop-up that interferes with the throw when there remains an opportunity for a play ........

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Perfectly legal in NFHS......unless she did something illegal......gotta love NFHS rules.

This is one reason why coaches should not be writing rules. Just like the NCAA book.....it has gotten so technical you damn near need a PhD to understand it. JMHO

Joel

[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