What's your call?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You cited 8-6-13. As I mentioned in my previous post, I thought that only applied in the case of when a runner slides to break up a double play, not in the case of when a runner goes into a base while the fielder waits to tag her.

Again, read the rule. Art 13...The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the action so fthe fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her. Runners are never required to slide, but, if the runner elects to slide, the slide shall be legal.

If we won't allow a runner to go into that fielder with a poor slide attempt, we shouldn't allow her to go into that fielder completely standing up either. But we do allow the latter, as long as the contact when she goes in standing up is not malicious.

And in most rule sets, the runner isn't allowed to go into a defender standing up. NFHS added a level of contact which to me is absurd and, IMO, poorly worded. As you can see from the beginning of this thread, people want to hang there hat on those levels and often in an effort to permit it. Well, IMO what this rule basically states is that it is okay to interfere with a player attempting a tag as long as it wasn't done with excessive force.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The difference is that an illegal slide is an illegal act and is, by definition, illegal contact.

That's a bogus notion. A runner can go into the catcher standing up, and as long as there isn't any evidence of maliciousness, it's perfectly legal. But if she goes into the catcher while executing a slide that doesn't meet the definition of a legal slide, she's ruled out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

That's a bogus notion. A runner can go into the catcher standing up, and as long as there isn't any evidence of maliciousness, it's perfectly legal. But if she goes into the catcher while executing a slide that doesn't meet the definition of a legal slide, she's ruled out.

Of course, you are speaking Federation, but Tom's comment is not more bogus than the rule.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Andy

Look who came out of the woodwork......

ditto, and welcome !

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

Look who came out of the woodwork......

Originally Posted by CecilOne

ditto, and welcome !

Thanks for the welcome back, guys!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Manny A

That's a bogus notion. A runner can go into the catcher standing up, and as long as there isn't any evidence of maliciousness, it's perfectly legal. But if she goes into the catcher while executing a slide that doesn't meet the definition of a legal slide, she's ruled out.

NFHS has made a distinction in their rule book. They have defined a legal and an illegal slide. An illegal slide is illegal contact.

A collision CAN be illegal contact, but not necessarily. Malicious contact is illegal contact (see 8-6-14, the very next rule.). Intentional, but not malicious, crashing could be declared as interference under 8-6-10-d.

If you see this as bogus, your argument is with the NFHS, not me.

[Dakota]

From the NFHS case book:

3.6.18 SITUATION A:

F5, who has the ball, is in position at third base to make a tag on advancing R1. R1 (a) maliciously crashes into F5 and dislodges the ball, or (b) runs into F5 without attempting to avoid the tag and dislodges the ball, or (c) attempts to slide and dislodges the ball, or (d) attempts to avoid F5 but remains in the baseline and dislodges the ball.

RULING: In (a) and (b), the ball is dead and R1 is out for not legally attempting to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her. Additionally, in (a) R1 is ejected for malicious contact. In (c) and (d), R1 is safe. (8-4-2b,c, Penalty)

... although their rule reference is odd...

[Manny A]

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out the case book play, Dakota.