Another how to handle it
 

Ok, had this in a HS JV Tourney Saturday.

I'm the base umpire.

R1 on 2nd, R3 on 1st. B3 hits to deep RF for a base hit. R1 scores. Throw comes in to the catcher while R2 is halfway between 3b and home. She catches it and establishes a position holding the ball blocking tjhe plate, about 2 feet in front of the plate.

R2 keeps running and the very last second appears to start a very late slide directly into the catcher. The feet are not up, but she makes very hard contact with the catcher, which knocks the catcher backwards. As she falls backward, the ball rolls out of the glove. The plate umpire calls the runner safe.

The defensive coach has flames coming out his ears as he come out of the bench area. The plate umpire believes the runner attempted to slide and slide into the catcher. Obviously the coach disagrees.

I didn't even have time to come in to protect the plate umpire because B3 is having words with the SS who obstructed her as she rounded 2b. I need to make sure this doesn't escalate.

My personal opinion is the contact at the plate was intentional and should have been ruled illegal and possibly malicious.

What should I do different in this based on my position as the base umpire on a potentally dangerous play at the plate?

Luckily nobody was hurt.

The play at the plate is the plate umpire's call. If I'm the base umpire I'm going to wait and if my partner asks what I saw I'll offer my view of it. Otherwise I'm going to keep it to myself.

To add to Seth's spot on answer, I'll add that this would be in my post game discussion with my partner.

You should do just what you did.

I know it's HS not ASA and without seeing the play it's tough but it sounds like the runner did NOT remain upright and crash into a fielder with the ball. Sounds like the plate Ump may have got the call right....I have a legal run in ASA!

Based on your description alone (and not seeing it), I have a run as well.

You mentioned that you "didn't have time to protect the plate umpire" - assuming it was just one coach, there was no need for you to do so. Your job in this sitch is to keep any 2nd coach from approaching him.

PS - "The defensive coach has flames coming out his ears as he come out of the bench area." - as PU, I'm ejecting before he says a damn word, and THIS coach is never getting "I think she tried to slide" out of me. The next one, if calm, might.

So the catcher lost possession of the ball due to her 'falling backwards' (iow: falling to the ground) and not from the hard slide, and tag?

From the angle I had, the catcher never lost possession of the ball until she fell backward and hit the ground, which was a result of the contact with the offensive player. The tag was applied, and the contact caused the catcher to fall backward, and when the catcher fell back the ball came out as her body, and glove hit the ground.

Granted here that your BU and not PU, and he has a better view of the entire play (hopefully, considering you have other responsibilities here)... but if PU saw EXACTLY what you just described, I have an out. No Malicious contact and no ejection ... just an out on the tag.

But from his angle, he is in position to really know whether the catcher maintained possession during the tag. If not - and the ball was dislodged during the tag, and not (as you saw from 100 feet away) on the fall - his ruling was correct.

The fielder must maintain possession of the ball whenever they go to the ground. Whether it be from laying out to make a catch or from a hard slide like you explained.

No. Laying out to make a catch... absolutely. On a tag, absolutely not - once the tag is made and the ball is secure at the moment of that tag, future actions are irrelevant - the player is out before the player starts stumbling to the ground.

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.

You may want to rethink this.

And why would that be???

the thought process that 'possession' must be maintained from hitting the ground (as compared to maintaining possession from the hard slide) If the 'contact from the slide' did not make the defense lose possession of the ball' then you have an out. Even though the movements after the tag was applied and the contact with the ground caused the defense to lose possession.