Collision at plate, What's your call?
 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHVNBppFGGY

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NHVNBppFGGY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bad Video bad angle no way to see where everyone is. So would have to back the call

Looks like the runner attempted to slide (a poor attempt) and the defensive player dropped the ball. I have safe. But I saw no malice on the part of the runner.

agree with that

An umpire that called this malicious needs to hang em up. Safe.

Hard (for me anyway) to tell just when (and what caused) the ball to be dropped. just sayin.

(never mind, using full screen, the ball comes out on the tag)

Sounds more like making excuses for not making a tough call.

Well, speaking ASA & NFHS, I'm going the other way.

8.7.Q & 8-6-13 has no requirement for the act to be intentional or malicious. If you check the clip at :44, you will see the runner still upright just prior to contact (actually higher than the player making the tag), leading with a knee.

Just bending a knee and lifting one's feet does not constitute a slide. In NFHS where they define a legal slide, this action doesn't even come close to meeting the specification of a leg and buttock being on the ground.

I'm calling the runner out. It is a shame it was a poor "attempt", if that, to slide, but being poor at a performance mechanic does not absolve the player and certainly wouldn't be any comfort to the player on the other end of the collision.

Personally, I wouldn't put it by some of these coaches to teach this method of contacting a defender simply so they have a back-up argument if the call doesn't go their way.

Mike, part of my reason for not seeing this as illegal is this - bad video aside, look at where the plate is relative to where she starts sliding. If she slides any earlier, she never makes it to the plate. This tag is made a good 4-5 feet up the line, she can't be expected to be much further along in her slide than she is.

I'm confused by your ruling from a NFHS perspective. While it may be the case that this isn't a legal slide by definition, there is no requirement in FED to slide on a tag play at home. She may go in standing up as long as the contact isn't malicious. I didn't see anything (given the video quality) that would give me the impression that she did anything malicious.

I thought legality of slides is taken into consideration when a fielder is attempting to make a play on another runner, such as on the pivot person during a double play.

Is the issue malicious or is it "upright with great force"?

So what? Where in any rule does is limit the scope of where on the field this rule applies. If she was THAT far out, did she have any business trying to score? BTW, I don't think it was that far out. The pitcher's feet were damn near on the plate when the collision occurred and the runner's knee almost lands on it.


Try reading the rules cited. Neither requires a slide, nor malicious contact.

Let's get a few things straight. First, IrishMafia, where does it say the rules apply differently to poor base running? So the point you made is entire pointless.

Next, it is a failed bunt attempt that lead to a pickoff. This turns into a poorly executed rundown. Maybe we should penalize the defense for that, right IrishMafia? :rolleyes:

Lastly, the pitcher is covering the plate and doesn't get her footing nor attempt to apply the tag correctly. Plus she's several feet up the line. Plus, if you look at the tag and how the ball "comes out," it is arguable that she never had legal possession of the ball in the first place. That means we'd have __________?

I'm neither a chair designer nor a flight attendant, but it seems that some people have different definitions of upright than others. I find it hard to be upright when I'm going into a slide with my feet first.

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.

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.

Nothing there about breaking up a double play.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

ditto, and welcome ! :) :cool:

Thanks for the welcome back, guys! :)

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.

From the NFHS case book:
... although their rule reference is odd... :confused:

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