Interference Rule on Slide into Catcher

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

May 6, 2015
2,397
113
1623690072367.png
runner is out at THIS moment. they have no right to ANYTHING at this point, but they do have an obligation not to interefere with defense. runner came and and slid purposely into catchers legs with no legitimate purpose other than to take them out. if that is not definition of malicious contact (purposely making contact with no legitimate purpose), it needs to be. I can tell you someone does this to DD2, they better be ready to face DD1 in the parking lot is DD1 is at game.

sorry, dirty play, no matter how it gets spun. runners reaction after kinda confirms it (rolls onto plate to try and decieve about where they slid, no thought of checking on catcher)

did catcher set up wrong, yes, but that does not give runner right to take them out (different if tag play, then slide into defender is allowed to dislodge ball, get under/round tag, etc.) that is key here, runner is out already, from the split second in the above picture. plenty of time to veer off, slide behind catcher, etc.

maybe we should not award fee base on HBP if the contact occurred in the river. after all, the batter is truly only safe in the box? make the river a kind of wild west no mans land where anything goes. maybe catchers should learn how to trip and fall into basepath once contact is made (they wouldnt be blocking 1B, go around them). maybe catchers as they set up should untie batters shoelaces (not spelled out specifically as malicious contact in rulebook, must be OK).
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
Malicious contact definition: NFHS 2.35 Is an act that involves excessive force with an opponent.

Purpose (legitimate or otherwise) has nothing to do with it. Some would say breaking up a DP IS a legitimate purpose. Excessive is a judgment, lowering a shoulder is a guideline, but lowering a shoulder can also be protective, especially if the runner is slowing down at the same time. Sliding into the catcher, is the slide is within arm's length of the base, IS legitimate as the SB rules are currently written in NFHS.

maybe we should not award fee base on HBP if the contact occurred in the river

We don't if teh batter made no attempt to get out of the way and had the opportunity to do so.

maybe catchers should learn how to trip and fall into basepath once contact is made

If they trip and fall due to incidental contact you have nothing. If the contact was not incidental you have obs or int depending on the rest of the play.

maybe catchers as they set up should untie batters shoelaces (not spelled out specifically as malicious contact in rulebook, must be OK).

this is definitely NOT MC as the contact isn't excessive, although it probably WOULD be catcher's obstruction.

runner is out at THIS moment. they have no right to ANYTHING at this point, but they do have an obligation not to interfere with defense.
Actually depending on where the ball is, this is the point I have obstruction. Also, the retired runner DOES have an obligation not to interfere with the defense. You are arguing both sides of the coin, you say the runner has no responsibility to avoid contact, but then you say she is guilty of malicious contact for what is contact during a perfectly legal slide (again, I would argue the slide is illegal). There is NO excessive force, the runner slides just as hard as she needs to to get to the plate given. If she had intended to make excessive force she would have come in harder, then she would be carried past the bag, illegal slide. Or she would have slid late, illegal slide. Or she would have come in spikes high, illegal slide.

Do I think the runner intended to break up the DP? Yes, I do. Is that intent alone interference? Not if what the runner does is legal in the attempt. If this slide is legal under current NFHS rules then you do not have interference. Again, I would be hard pressed to call malicious contact because there is not excessive force (IMO). Which leads back to was the slide legal? If not, why not? Was there obstruction prior to the possibly illegal slide? If so, why? If you have neither an illegal slide NOR obstruction then you have but the out at the plate on the force. Which is what the calling umpire called. (PS I am not suggesting that the calling umpire was correct)
 
May 6, 2015
2,397
113
I never said the runner had no responsibility to avoid contact, in fact the opposite, if possible (ie they had not already started slide, etc.), they need to avoid interfering in any way withe the defense. including taking their legs out.

runner is out at the point indicated in the screen capture because Catcher HAS THE BALL IN HER MITT at that point, it was a FORCE OUT. how is their obstruction?, CATCHER HAS THE BALL. you can BLOCK THE BASE PATH ALL DAY LONG WITH THE BALL. obstruction does not occur until the runner is impeded by a defensive player WITHOUT the ball. force used was entirely excessive because there was no purpose to the slide, other than to take catchers legs out, and it was long after they were out, AND they veered specifically to make contact. If they had gone straight into the plate, maybe not MC. to me taking someone's legs out without a hope of being safe is excessive in of of itself. maybe BR should just start running into 1B after a force out and say "but it was not excessive". maybe next time a runner scores, DD will shove her, but lighlty so it is not excessive. it was a light shove, so it is OK, it was not excessive. any contact without a legitimate purpose is excessive really

and actually sliding into a player with intent only to break up DP is definition of interference. if runner is out, and has time to do so, they must avoid the play, not interfere. remember, also, in this case once they make force out, C turns away from runner, not towards them like MI turning double play turning into runner so they see them. this is a blind side hit with no purpose.

slide like that on DD, you better hope she is injured. if not, probably get up and peg you with the ball on an "errant" throw. nothing malicious right, just missed her target by 180 degrees.
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
@bmakj I know that isn't what you said, sorry for the confusion. That being said, there are many things to unpack about the following statement:

sliding into a player with intent only to break up DP is definition of interference. if runner is out, and has time to do so, they must avoid the play, not interfere.

Let's change things up a bit from the play as it occurred, just to make some distinctions.

1) Put the C nowhere near the baseline, in other words obstruction is not on the table at all.

2) Throw is delayed and the runner is NOT already retired at the time of the slide.

Now, we have the same slide (not directly into the base but the runner CAN reach it with an arm), Contact is made with the C in the act of fielding the throw or concurrent with her receiving it. Do you have interference? If the ball is dropped because of the contact do you still have an out at the plate? I would say no, you do not have interference and if the contact during a legal slide results in a dropped ball you do not have an out anywhere.

This is why the status of the runner is so important (retired or not). If retired, she has responsibility to avoid. If she had already begun her slide, no umpire will expect her to stop her slide. If she HADN'T, then even a legal slide could result in interference. This is the case in the OP.

Again, in the video I do not have excessive contact, I have an illegal slide, it was late and the leg/buttock were not down at the time of contact. Even if the slide had begun early enough to not have been avoidable this will be interference.

You make some statements that involve contact during illegal/unsportsmanlike actions
maybe BR should just start running into 1B after a force out
and
maybe next time a runner scores, DD will shove her

and finally

slide like that on DD, you better hope she is injured. if not, probably get up and peg you with the ball on an "errant" throw

the first may not be malicious, it depends on how hard the contact is, the second is most likely unsporting and will result in ejection regardless of how hard the shove is.

In the third, your DD will be the one ejected for throwing at the runner with intent. It will also probably end up in other ejections because there is likely to be fisticuffs involved.

I know you want to protect the C, and I do as well. But I also have to allow the runner to act in accordance with the rules. If the slide is legal, there is a chance there will be contact. Just need to get the force-play slide rule to read that the slide needs to be in line with the base.

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.
 
Jul 22, 2015
851
93
This is why the status of the runner is so important (retired or not). If retired, she has responsibility to avoid
Aside from the other issues with this play, when we refer to a retired runner, I'm curious when/how the runner is expected to know? On this particular play I didn't see an out called prior to the completion of the slide, and I'm not sure when it was ever called. I hadn't thought about it before but I assume the burden is on the runner to know their status? I have seen a few plays where the runner continues to run the bases after being "out" because the umpire (as in this play) didn't make a clear call or made a very delayed call.
 
Feb 13, 2021
880
93
MI
The runner was out when the catcher voluntarily released the ball from the mitt after having had possession of the ball and contact with the plate prior to the runner arriving there. Are you arguing that runners do not know when they are out? If a call is that close or that questionable, then the runner is not going to be considered a retired runner at the moment most likely to be in question. (e.g. the ball and runner arrive at virtually the same time on a force play)
 
Jul 22, 2015
851
93
The runner was out when the catcher voluntarily released the ball from the mitt after having had possession of the ball and contact with the plate prior to the runner arriving there. Are you arguing that runners do not know when they are out? If a call is that close or that questionable, then the runner is not going to be considered a retired runner at the moment most likely to be in question. (e.g. the ball and runner arrive at virtually the same time on a force play)
Not arguing, just thinking. I know that as a coach I encourage my runners to never assume anything, as a fielder could have pulled a foot off a base or dropped a ball when they didn't see it. As an umpire I try to make my calls loud, clear, and as quickly as is prudent. However, I do often see umpires who don't make much of an audible or demonstrative call which can lead to problems on the bases.
 
May 6, 2015
2,397
113
It was a force, she saw catcher catch the ball (and is out from that moment on, notwisthanding transfer), with time to avoid at least the level of contact involved. instead she moved more into C and away from plate. clear intent. if she thought there was a chance to be safe, why not sneak your foot towards the plate, rather than catchers foot?

how is bumping 1B after ground out possibley malicious, but slamming full speed into someones feet with yours not (remember, out before even starting to slide, so no legitimate purpose in the slide whatsoever)?

runner was out before sliding, and changed direction into the defense. just not within rules. veer off into foul territory, slide over HP, dont veer away from your only legitimate target to take out someones feet. it is BS. not a legal slide.

and if DD got ejected, no biggie, meet me in the parking lot (I probably would be too). I would send tape of incident and break down shot by shot to sanctioning body myself. and to head of opposing org.

what is in peoples heads encouraging behaviour that is dangerous, unsportsmanlike, and illegal?
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2019
130
43
CATCHER HAS THE BALL. you can BLOCK THE BASE PATH ALL DAY LONG WITH THE BALL. obstruction does not occur until the runner is impeded by a defensive player WITHOUT the ball.
Maybe things have changed in the 5 years since I umpired, and that was NFHS Baseball - but I think the rule was the same in softball - there is no obstruction if you have the ball. If I would have been the home plate umpire and I did not call that and not toss the girl sliding, I am pretty sure I would have had a livid coach to deal with. Big time miss IMHO.
 
Dec 11, 2010
4,713
113
Where the slide contacts the catchers legs bothers me the most. She isn’t sliding to get to the plate in case the umpire doesn’t call her out, she head hunts the catcher in front of the plate. It’s a rotten thing to do. It could have resulted in a serious knee ankle or whatever injury.

Anybody who is quoting the cleat above the knee stuff is missing the point. The runner slides into an unsuspecting player in a place that doesn’t make sense for her to slide. It’s head hunting (or knee hunting in this case.)

Rotten. Ejected. Coach, go keep her company, bet this isn’t the first time this happened this year (playoff game).

I despise this kind of stuff. Despise players that would do that.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,832
Messages
679,494
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top