Interference Rule on Slide into Catcher

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Mar 10, 2020
734
63
I realize these are high school players who aren't as well trained on sliding to avoid the catcher/tag and catchers aren't as well trained in positioning as the best players in travel and college.

Edited to add: By high school, these girls know what they are doing when it comes to payback and dirty hits even if they are the highest level players. If there is any age of innocence any more, it is gone by the time the girls leave middle school.
Theres a mixed message.
Assumption at its best.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
We also keep bringing up intent in conjunction with malicious contact. At least in NFHS, the only time intent is mentioned is when deciding if there was an obvious attempt to break up a DP and if you assess a second out. INTENT is not part of MC.

This is an interesting take. You are correct that the word "intent" does not appear in the definition of malicious contact. Personally, I think the word "excessive" infers a level of intent. In other words, you can have a horrific collision that is just an accident. That collision is, of course, going to have force to it, but presumably the normal amount of force of a runner running. The addition of any excess force is what makes it malicious contact.

So what "adds force" or creates more force ("excessive force")? Obviously you have things like dropping the shoulder, balling up with intent to "explode" ... but wouldn't deliberately starting a slide late so that there is more force behind it to "take out a player" also fit that description?
 
Feb 1, 2021
273
43
This is an interesting take. You are correct that the word "intent" does not appear in the definition of malicious contact. Personally, I think the word "excessive" infers a level of intent. In other words, you can have a horrific collision that is just an accident. That collision is, of course, going to have force to it, but presumably the normal amount of force of a runner running. The addition of any excess force is what makes it malicious contact.

So what "adds force" or creates more force ("excessive force")? Obviously you have things like dropping the shoulder, balling up with intent to "explode" ... but wouldn't deliberately starting a slide late so that there is more force behind it to "take out a player" also fit that description?

Maybe this would die down without this comment, but...

'Intent to' is 'for the purpose of'.

'Malice' is 'intending to cause harm or injury'.

Injuring someone without the 'purpose of or intent to cause harm' cannot be considered malicious. I am not sure how you could even define malicious without the concept of purpose or intent.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
Sorry black17. ;)

giphy.gif
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
Maybe this would die down without this comment, but...

'Intent to' is 'for the purpose of'.

'Malice' is 'intending to cause harm or injury'.

Injuring someone without the 'purpose of or intent to cause harm' cannot be considered malicious. I am not sure how you could even define malicious without the concept of purpose or intent.

And in most non-martial arts sports, wouldn't an intent to cause harm or injury be unsporting? I know the what the rule was intended to curb, but it is a rule that was already in the books and is not required. A simple point of emphasis would have been enough.
 

radness

Possibilities & Opportunities!
Dec 13, 2019
7,270
113
Hmmm
Have purposely, with intent,
hit the ball as hard as i could at a specific infielders direction. Pegging her. She dropped to her knees after.

Have purposely, with intent, thrown the ball as hard as i could and pegged runners.
Having to call time and walk it off.

Have purposely, with intent,
(with the ball in my glove)
Held my ground at the plate tagging a sliding runner. Who injured themself colliding into a catcher who became a wall.
Could i have opted for a sweep tag? Perhaps.

Have been pegged by a pitch in the ribs, which cracked ribs and dropped me in the box.
Did i screem malicious? No.
Did the umpire warn the pitcher. No.

Yep all this purposely,
with intent = to win.
Never ejected.

All that said,
Umpires having to make a decision in the moment
trying to determine
'did she purposely intend to hurt the other player?'
Is extremely difficult!
*high cleats in a slide maybe more obvious?? But then was it just a bad slider??

Very difficult especially if it is going to include ejecting a player.

Most ejections that have seen on the field came because of
Coaches verbal junk! Having to leave the game.


UMPIRES of all the games you have officiated, imagine tons of circumstances,
How many times have you ejected a player?
How many times a coach?

( can you offer any statistical #'s?
Like~ 1 player a year per 500 games? Or?)

Thnx
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2020
70
18
Did a little research, and take this with a grain of salt, Maxpreps has this HS team ranked in the top 25 nationally, so it is likely that most of these girls have been playing high level travel ball for a while. Also, for those interested, Runner's team won the game (CIF Semi-final).

Bad slide? Maybe. "Playing Hard?" Definitely. Intent to injure? No way to tell. The way she grabbed the bat and bolted for the dugout tells me she didn't expect that particular outcome and wanted to be as far as possible from the fallout, I didn't see that as an indicator of intent. We know she was out, but she was running hard at the plate, and without a clear out sign from the ump, had to assume the catcher's foot was off the plate so she had to get there. When catcher records out, does she have right to assume runner ceases to exist, and therefore can put her feet anywhere to make the throw?

When I first watched, I was appalled at the outcome, and the seeming indifference to the catcher's situation. Reading this thread, and rewatching the video, I believe this was a softball play with unfortunate consequences, and a confluence of the actions of all three parties (runner. catcher, umpire).

The thing that impressed me most in that video was how 1B kept her head, made sure that the pitcher got back to the circle with the ball, kept home covered and called time-out, that was impressive leadership.
 
May 6, 2015
2,397
113
" had to assume the catcher's foot was off the plate so she had to get there. " get where, the catchers foot, is that how she scores safely, sliding into catcher's foot, I thought it was the plate. if she thought she could still score, slide would have been to plate. this is where intent comes in, she intended to take catcher out.

and once the catcher records the out, the onus is on offensive player, not the defense, to avoid interfering with the play. breaking up a double play on anything that is not bang bang is not smart base running, is not playing hard, it is against the rules.

not playing hard, playing dirty definitley, even if intent was not to injure, intent was to do exact opposite of what rules call for once a runner is retired, ie interfering. jsut because this was accepted for a long time still does not make it right.
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
The intent to make contact with a fielder is NOT MC (unless the umpire rules it is excessive, what is excessive? Perhaps an intent to injure rather just an intent to break up a play?). Sliding to one side or the other of a base is NOT interference nor an illegal slide under the current NFHS rules. Was the runner far enough from the plate for the umpire to judge she could have avoided contact? That is the umpire's judgment.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top