Interference Rule on Slide into Catcher

[CoachJD]

I agree with everybody who says she was sliding in an attempt to break up the double play attempt. And since she was out well before the slide, I can get with an interference call. But I'm not sure I see the ejection because then you have to eject a player every single time she (completely, 100% legally based on the legal/illegal slide rules) slides into the legs of a player. Should any act of interference that causes injury lead to an ejection?

So, what makes this play different than other breaking up a double play attempt slides? What makes it worse? Should we take the result (the catcher being hurt) and factor that in? If she had popped up completely fine, would that make a difference?

And, maybe most importantly, what is so obvious about it from watching the play live, one time, that can cause us to blame the umpires for not ejecting the player?

I don't know. I'm usually on the side almost everyone else is on, but I just don't see it. I think that's because I'm not sure "intentionally sliding to break up a double play" is something that warrants an ejection, though it does look like interference.

 

[SoulFY]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I also don't see this as something you would eject for. She is just simply sliding into the plate. The rules allow for her to slide anywhere as long as she is in reach of the base. She literally ends up sitting on the plate after the slide is over. I don't see this as excessive force as it is a slide into a base.

Don't think sliding into defense players is grounds for ejections when it isn't an illegal slide. Someone already posted the highschool rule for slides

 

[bmakj]

I agree with everybody who says she was sliding in an attempt to break up the double play attempt. And since she was out well before the slide, I can get with an interference call. But I'm not sure I see the ejection because then you have to eject a player every single time she (completely, 100% legally based on the legal/illegal slide rules) slides into the legs of a player. Should any act of interference that causes injury lead to an ejection?

So, what makes this play different than other breaking up a double play attempt slides? What makes it worse? Should we take the result (the catcher being hurt) and factor that in? If she had popped up completely fine, would that make a difference?

And, maybe most importantly, what is so obvious about it from watching the play live, one time, that can cause us to blame the umpires for not ejecting the player?

I don't know. I'm usually on the side almost everyone else is on, but I just don't see it. I think that's because I'm not sure "intentionally sliding to break up a double play" is something that warrants an ejection, though it does look like interference.

to me the issue is she veers AWAY from her legitimate target (HP) to initiate contact. the whole as long as they can reach out and touch the base or HP is designed to give baserunners a way to avoid tag and still make get to base, not to give them leeway to deliberately try to injure players (if you intentionally try to take out someones legs, with no other purpose, that is intent to injure, saying otherwise is BS, if you know an action very likely can cause injury, and do it anyway, the intent is to injure)

lets turn tables, catcher had miraculously hopped to avoid slide, and coming down looks, sees both runners legs and an open spot, and clearly decides to land on runners knee instead. all good there?

 

[bmakj]

She is just simply sliding into the plate. The rules allow for her to slide anywhere as long as she is in reach of the base. She literally ends up sitting on the plate after the slide is over. I don't see this as excessive force as it is a slide into a base.

Don't think sliding into defense players is grounds for ejections when it isn't an illegal slide. Someone already posted the highschool rule for slides

NOPE NOPE NOPE, watch again please

she veers AWAY from plate, and misses entirely, scooches/rolls over after contact in clear effort to make it appear she slid into plate. clearly an experienced dirty player. if not "illegal slide", then definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. no purpose to that slide other than to injure (again, taking an action that one knows is likely to lead to injury to another, is intent to injure) she was FORCED OUT out with plenty of time to avoid contact.

a retired runner has an OBLIGATION to try to avoid interfering with the play if possible, there is no carte blanche as long as it is attempting to break up a double play. if one is already in their slide, OK, cant reverse this, but well after the force out is actually clearly against the rules, breaking up double play or not. this girl not only made no attempt to avoid interfering with the play, she clearly went out of her way to do so in a very dangerous way. hope for her sake shes not 18.

 

[radness]

NOPE NOPE NOPE, watch again please

she veers AWAY from plate, and misses entirely, scooches/rolls over after contact in clear effort to make it appear she slid into plate. clearly an experienced dirty player. if not "illegal slide", then definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. no purpose to that slide other than to injure (again, taking an action that one knows is likely to lead to injury to another, is intent to injure) she was FORCED OUT out with plenty of time to avoid contact.

a retired runner has an OBLIGATION to try to avoid interfering with the play if possible, there is no carte blanche as long as it is attempting to break up a double play. if one is already in their slide, OK, cant reverse this, but well after the force out is actually clearly against the rules, breaking up double play or not. this girl not only made no attempt to avoid interfering with the play, she clearly went out of her way to do so in a very dangerous way. hope for her sake shes not 18.

So your perspective/goal on this whole thread is
Eject the runner ?

Seriously bmakj you have wonderfully diagnosed looking at video/pics. Yet didnt read you acknowledge this~
Do you see how the catchers own feet and her own actions attributed to the contact made?

Very clear in pictures.

Does a player have the right to stand where-ever because they have the ball?
(that has been determined ok)
But you are commenting what happened after the out.
Which is the question of ejection you bring up.
Which brings this important point~
Catcher~ after catching the ball, catchers own actions~ actually moved her own feet and body closer and into a runner comming in.
Did not have to do that at all!
*Could have easily moved away from incidental contact.

Would never consider this an ejection of the runner.

And the argument to say the runner purposely slid to create contact.
Is the same argument to say what the catcher did by moving in the way.

The catcher Literraly put her own feet/body closer up the 3rd base line and directly into the oncomming runner.
The catcher should have moved toward 1st base.

 

[The Man In Blue]

In NFHS, look at rule 8.6.14 The Runner is out when she remains on her feet and maliciously crashes into a defensive player.

There is no rule that says anything about malicious contact while in the act of sliding, simply legal/illegal slide.

EDIT: And as noted by CrabbyBob above, this whole play followed an illegal pitch so it never even happened in a robot- umpired world.

In my opinion, each of those pieces of information are incorrect.

The definition of malicious contact does NOT say anything about being on your feet. Are you telling me a defensive player cannot make malicious contact? The rule you cite does refer to the runner staying on her feet. It does not impart that as a requirement for malicious contact. It adds a penalty (the runner is out) that is not included in the definition (since the definition applies to ALL players). Umpires need to break the habit of reading one rule and declaring that only what is says is sole authoritative source on a subject.

While there may have been an illegal pitch (I thought that was joke so I didn't go look to see what the infraction was) ... the play still happened. An illegal pitch is a delayed dead ball. The play still plays out. IF you rule there was malicious contact, an illegal pitch does not nullify malicious contact that occurs when the play is playing out. It is not license to do anything you want. As an umpire, you still need to deal with this aftermath.

As the rules stands NFHS contains two entries in the index under malicious contact, 2.35 the definition and 8.6.14 which requires the runner to remain on her feet.

NO. 8.6.14 states the runner is out if she stays on her feet and creates malicious contact. It doe NOT say that is a requirement for malicious contact. (I know, I said that above, but I saw this quote afterwards. It is a good quick summary!)

 

[bmakj]

So your perspective/goal on this whole thread is
Eject the runner ?

Seriously bmakj you have wonderfully diagnosed looking at video/pics. Yet didnt read you acknowledge this~
Do you see how the catchers own feet and her own actions attributed to the contact made?

Very clear in pictures.

Does a player have the right to stand where-ever because they have the ball?
(that has been determined ok)
But you are commenting what happened after the out.
Which is the question of ejection you bring up.
Which brings this important point~
Catcher~ after catching the ball, catchers own actions~ actually moved her own feet and body closer and into a runner comming in.
Did not have to do that at all!
*Could have easily moved away from incidental contact.

Would never consider this an ejection of the runner.

And the argument to say the runner purposely slid to create contact.
Is the same argument to say what the catcher did by moving in the way.

View attachment 22547The catcher Literraly put her own feet/body closer up the 3rd base line and directly into the oncomming runner.
The catcher should have moved toward 1st base.

RAD, you are right, C moved in a way that was not good . . . . BUT . . . . that does NOT give carte blanche for the runner to INTENTIONALLY try to take the C out when they have an OBLIGATION by rule to try and not interfere with the play. if the runner had slid into HP or in any way tried to avoid or lessen the contact (when based on when out was made they had plenty of time to do so), and some contact was made, and C went down just as hard, OK, part of the game. but they intentionally tried to "sweep the leg" and make contact. DIRTY PLAYER and COACH, because this behaviour must be coached.

two wrongs do not make a right, just possibly make the wrong worse (and definitely so in this case).

look at the still, pretty much shows runner sweeping the legs, are we saying the Kobra Kai way is the right way? she's lucky in one way the C was injured, like I said, if it had been DD, and she managed to escape injury, probably would have gotten up and probably stomped the runner.

once the runner was put out, they have no right anything whether then can touch the plate or not. if they were already starting slide, OK, but they were a stride or more away. plenty of opportunity to veer, redirect, whatever. at that point they had no RIGHT to anything except the dugout or up against the fence really.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I also don't see this as something you would eject for. She is just simply sliding into the plate. The rules allow for her to slide anywhere as long as she is in reach of the base. She literally ends up sitting on the plate after the slide is over. I don't see this as excessive force as it is a slide into a base.

Don't think sliding into defense players is grounds for ejections when it isn't an illegal slide. Someone already posted the highschool rule for slides

I have seen a few people mention that the runner ends up on home plate, but I may be seeing it differently (again, with the benefit of slow motion). The runner does NOT do anything to make sure she ends up on home plate. The impact pushes her there.

I am in some level of agreeance that I don't see the slide in and of itself being an illegal slide by NFHS rule. However, that does NOT automatically mean it is a legal play (just a legal slide).

I think I said earlier (if not, I should amend my statement) that I could see this NOT being called as excessive in real time. A huge part that we are missing is what else has been going on in this game. If this was a one-off occurrence, I can see this NOT being called. If the game had been chippy and little (or not so little) things had been going on constantly, it is a no-brainer.

to me the issue is she veers AWAY from her legitimate target (HP) to initiate contact.

This is where I have an issue. There was NO intent to reach the base safely. Granted, the NFHS Softball rules do not require this, but it is something an umpire MUST take into account in these cases. The slide may have been within the guidelines of the slide rules, but that does NOT automatically mean it is OK.

Working a day of 9u baseball on turf this past weekend ... runner steals third and slides. He is not used to sliding on turf and his legs go up as his weight goes past the fulcrum of his butt. His lead foot hits F5 on the thigh. Should I have called him out for this? On dirt, he would have more resistance which would have prevented this. There was no intent and it didn't affect the play, so I'm not calling this and we are moving on. Nobody says a word.

Here is one of those statements that gets me in trouble (that does not mean it is wrong): Just because it is legal in one place does not mean it is legal. Just because it is illegal in one place does not mean it is illegal. You have to try to take the play in the entire context. Maybe it is quantum umpiring?

 

[bmakj]

I agree, in real time, possible to miss (especially with the scooch/roll back to the plate) the intent, so possibly no ejection in real time. but the intent is clear as day when you look at stills and video

 

[marriard]

I know there is a lot of rule talk around this and normally I am one to get deep into them about how this applies, and how that applies and so on.

The rules have changed in recent years with the stated intent of stopping runners trucking defensive players (at any base, but mostly this happens at home). The various rules committees in the sanctions that matter have clearly stated they want this taken completely out of the game. This is the exact sort of play it is meant to address.

The runner went straight in and clearly trucked the catcher and had plenty of time to avoid doing so. Intent doesn't even matter. She should 100% be ejected. If you are not getting that, you have not been listening to what has been going on in how they want this called. Years ago this was fine and 'part of the game'; it is no longer years ago.