Another how to handle it

[chapmaja]

My problem with the entire play was the amount of contact that occurred on the play, and the lateness of the slide attempt. The PU even admitted the slide was very very late. One of the things I heard from the irate coach was somewhat appropriate, "what about protecting the catcher."

From my angle I don't have malicious contact, but I would have called it an out for the level of contact. I might be biased however because my best friend in HS broke her ankle on a very similar play at the plate when runner did a very late slide. That injury may have cost her a chance to play collegel ball as well.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

My problem with the entire play was the amount of contact that occurred on the play, and the lateness of the slide attempt. The PU even admitted the slide was very very late. One of the things I heard from the irate coach was somewhat appropriate, "what about protecting the catcher."

From my angle I don't have malicious contact, but I would have called it an out for the level of contact. I might be biased however because my best friend in HS broke her ankle on a very similar play at the plate when runner did a very late slide. That injury may have cost her a chance to play collegel ball as well.

I truly hate to bash you on two simultaneous threads... but you continue to demonstrate that to you the rulebook is a guide, rather than a set of rules. Find a clinic, a mentor, whatever. Don't make stuff up to suit your personal set of desires on the field.

While you're at it... find us all the rule that says, "4.1.3 B - If the base umpire doesn't like the "level of contact" he may call an out, especially if a former friend of his hurt her ankle in a similar play." Luckily for those of us who actually care to check - the rulebook spells this out for us. If you have malicious contact (key word: MALICE), call an out. But to say flat out that you DON'T have malicious contact, but are going to call an out anyway??? Again, you do the entire profession a disservice.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I truly hate to bash you on two simultaneous threads... but you continue to demonstrate that to you the rulebook is a guide, rather than a set of rules. Find a clinic, a mentor, whatever. Don't make stuff up to suit your personal set of desires on the field.

While you're at it... find us all the rule that says, "4.1.3 B - If the base umpire doesn't like the "level of contact" he may call an out, especially if a former friend of his hurt her ankle in a similar play." Luckily for those of us who actually care to check - the rulebook spells this out for us. If you have malicious contact (key word: MALICE), call an out. But to say flat out that you DON'T have malicious contact, but are going to call an out anyway??? Again, you do the entire profession a disservice.

First, I really don't give a rats tail end about your opinion. Now maybe you should read the rulebook, specifically the rules 8-6-13.

8-6-13 The runner does not slide legally and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder making an immediate play on her. Runners are never required to slide, but if they slide the slide shall be legal.

Then refer to rule 2-52-1 A legal slide may be either head first or feet first. If a runner slides feet first, at least one leg and buttock must be on the ground. If the runner slides, the runner the runners hands or feet must be within the reach of the base when the slide is completed.


The key part of this is at least one leg and buttock MUST be in contact with the ground. The runner had not gotten to the ground when the contact with the catcher occured.

Now as for your assinine comments about my opinion. I persoanlly have a major problem with people who think they are the only person who knows anything about anything. You are acting EXACLY LIKE that person. You do not know me, you have never met me, but tyou sure seem to think you know all about me and my level of training. I don't pretend to know everything, but based on your comments I should just kiss your a$$ because you are the only person who knows everything about every rule in the book.

I don't know your level of experience, but I have talked to several umpires I know, including several that work high level college ball, as well as HS. They seem to agree based on the discussion that the runner should have been called out even if the contact was not malicious.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The key part of this is at least one leg and buttock MUST be in contact with the ground. The runner had not gotten to the ground when the contact with the catcher occured.

If you feel you need to change the story around to make the situation match your opinion... fine. You said nothing about an illegal slide. You said you wanted to rule them out because the contact was too hard and an old friend of yours hurt their leg in a slide that was too hard. Which is idiocy. If the slide was illegal - it's a completely different situation. By all means, rule them out for sliding illegally. Do NOT rule them out because you didn't like the level of contact (your words, sir).

you sure seem to think you know all about me and my level of training. I don't pretend to know everything, but based on your comments I should just kiss your a$$ because you are the only person who knows everything about every rule in the book.

I don't know you. I can only base my opinion of you on your own statements. You (in multiple threads) stated you wanted to make rulings because of your own personal feelings of fairness. That kind of umpire has no business on the field, and only makes matters more difficult for the real umpires that follow you.

No need to kiss my backside - personal kudos from you will do nothing for me. You DO need to crack open a rulebook - I base this solely on your own erroneous statements about what proper rulings should be.

I don't know everything - I participate here to learn. You should too. Especially if you can be cured of your desire to be that umpire the rest of us constantly have to clean up after.

[CecilOne]

Time for you two to take it offline.
This forum as no room for or acceptance of personal insults.

[chapmaja]

The legal definition of a tag reads that the the ball is not considered to be held securely if it jugged or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the fielders hand.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The legal definition of a tag reads that the the ball is not considered to be held securely if it jugged or dropped after the touching, unless the runner deliberately knocks the ball from the fielders hand.

For NFHS, maybe, not ASA, ISF or NCAA. NFHS doesn't define a "tag", it defines a "tag out"

Then again, it is somewhat ambiguous since there is no time frame or particular action provided to determine when the tag out becomes legal.