Interference Rule on Slide into Catcher

[The Man In Blue]

Follow up to @marriard 's excellent statement (and maybe an unnecessary paranoid self-defense) ... I didn't say it shouldn't happen, just that I can see how it might not happen.

 

[radness]

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

Not sure why you didnt want to comment on my point of the role of the catcher?
Commented to this because i do notice at times people want to apply punishment for what they think is intentful...
Instead of looking at all voluntary actions without intent in the mix.
Think adding intent would only be applied like TheManInBlue
described, knowing more details in the game. Was it a snippy battle.
Even still catcher should get out of the way.
Like a middle infielder on a double play.


Perhaps TheManInBlue post added better clarity.
Still all in all with this thread...glad to see the perspectives!

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.



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?

Good read .

 

[EdLovrich]

he 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.

You are correct that the definition does not include the penalty, NO definitions include the penalty. While I agree that both offense and defense can commit malicious contact (an overly aggressive tag-out, for instance), these are actions which should be covered under unsporting conduct.

This last concept, unsporting conduct vs. malicious contact, in interesting. Why do we even have the malicious contact definition and rule? Isn't malicious contact just another name for unsporting conduct? Malicious contact rules originated on the baseball side of things as a way to emphasize the heinousness of 'crashing' the defensive player (primarily the catcher). It was an attempt to get away from the culture of Bench/Fosse type collisions that were called 'just hard-nosed play'.

So, since I can justify ejecting a player for unsporting conduct, a overly aggressive tag, an illegal slide with spikes intentionally high and slashing, a rolling body slide., I will save 'malicious contact' for plays where the runner remains on her feet, lowers a shoulder or raises her arms, and does nothing to give herself up.

I think part of the discussion from the OP is "Are we ejecting the runner" The reason for ejecting is secondary, as long as it is based on rule.
Not all contact in illegal contact, an attempt to break up a DP in and of itself is not illegal, as long as the means one uses are legal. In this case, since the slide, by rule in NFHS currently, was within arm's reach of the plate, you cannot use that as our reason for calling interference. Was the slide legal in all other respects?

2.52.1 Legal Slide-A legal slide may be either feet first or head first. If a runner slides feet first, at least one leg and a buttock shall be on the ground. If a runner slides, the runner shall be within reach of the base with either hand or a foot when the slide is completed.

I would argue the buttock was not on the ground at the time of contact with the C. The slide was late and not a legal slide when it come to judging the action at the plate. The fact that the player did not slide directly to the plate DOES NOT make this an illegal slide.

Let's go on, was the slide illegal?

2.52.2 Illegal slide-A slide is lillegal if:
a. The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide into the fielder.
b. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position.
c. the runner goes beyond the base and makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder.
d. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or
e. the runner tries to injure the fielder.

Hrmmm, let's look a (e).....the runner tries to injure the fielder. Why is that in the definition of an illegal slide? Wouldn't malicious contact cover this? Unless, malicious contact was intended to prevent 'crashing' the player. This is mostly an academic review of the rules, I have an out and an ejection regardless of why you rule that way, but use the best justification for your action. Save malicious contact for 'crashing' the defensive player and use the other rules for things that warrant ejection but are not.

 

[EdLovrich]

Even still catcher should get out of the way.
Like a middle infielder on a double play.

@RADcatcher if the fielder isn't intentionally trying to draw an interference call, she can make the play in any way she sees fit. Is it the best way? Maybe not, but just because a fielder isn't fielding the ball I might think is the best way, is no reason for me as an umpire to not protect her. You are always saying umpires are not coaches and we shouldn't be coaching your players. If I make the decision that the way she is doing something is 'the wrong way' should that change the way I look at applying rules?

 

[bmakj]

@RADcatcher if the fielder isn't intentionally trying to draw an interference call, she can make the play in any way she sees fit. Is it the best way? Maybe not, but just because a fielder isn't fielding the ball I might think is the best way, is no reason for me as an umpire to not protect her. You are always saying umpires are not coaches and we shouldn't be coaching your players. If I make the decision that the way she is doing something is 'the wrong way' should that change the way I look at applying rules?

or, two wrongs do not make a right, but a much greater wrong. could the injury have been avoided if the C had better feet placement, absolutely. in no way absolves the runner from their liability here.

RAD, I did address, yes, catcher was not in best position, but was in a perfectly legal position. Obligation on that point belongs to the runner not to interefere (given how late they came in after the out was made), not on C to deal with the intentional slide into her legs.

 

[radness]

or, two wrongs do not make a right, but a much greater wrong. could the injury have been avoided if the C had better feet placement, absolutely. in no way absolves the runner from their liability here.

RAD, I did address, yes, catcher was not in best position, but was in a perfectly legal position. Obligation on that point belongs to the runner not to interefere (given how late they came in after the out was made), not on C to deal with the intentional slide into here legs.

Cant blame the runner for where the catcher moved either.

 

[bmakj]

Cant blame the runner for where the catcher moved either.

actually, you can, and should . the runner after being put out 2-3 strides earlier has OBLIGATION not to interfere, not obligation to interfere only if defender has perfect footwork. and the video and still clearly show intent, not just sliding into where catcher moved to, they moved to the catcher, maybe if runners left foot had barely taken Cs right foot out, but they clearly moved to space C was legally already occupying (no possible obstruction, C had ball, runner already out 2-3 steps prior). runner should have directed themselves away from the defense entirely, not just blithely continued on their path. they are obliged to take steps and make effort not to interfere, not just continue on their way. they were out, and had time to react, in fact they did so in the exact opposite of what they should have. LEarned behaviour.

 

[radness]

if the fielder isn't intentionally trying to draw an interference call, she can make the play in any way she sees fit.

Can see how you use perspective on intent.
And toss out perspective that can be applied to both offense and defense.

Much prefer
TheManInBlue observations and input explained here in.

( ed , correct i dont think umpires should coach players.
Just one time you brought up your talking to the catcher in such a wayway i did not agree. Since you tagged YOUR post to mine. Needed to clarify that moment. Thanku for a 2nd time to say this!
Good Luck on your umpiring journey sir. )

 

[radness]

could the injury have been avoided if the C had better feet placement, absolutely. in no way absolves the runner from their liability here.







RAD, I did address, yes, catcher was not in best position, but was in a perfectly legal position. Obligation on that point belongs to the runner not to interefere (given how late they came in after the out was made), not on C to deal with the intentional slide into her legs.

This is where i disagree
To your previous point of ejecting the runner.

* since you acknowledge the catchers actions could have helped create contact
( if catchers actions could have avoided it then the opposite is a possibilty)

We also know catcher did move up the line toward 3rd.
imo
Cannot only look at one players actions.
(nor apply intent of only one over the other)

Simply thats it.

 

[black17]

I see a lot of ways that could have gone different by all parties involved. If there was a play to be made after the force at home, interference is pretty clear. If no play was possible despite the intended throw, then no interference.

I don't see an ejection there despite agreeing there was probably some level of intent to interfere with the catcher. I can't say from the video the runner intended to take out the catcher with that level of aggression. The catchers late spin in front of the plate made a possibly benign 'getting in the way' more serious in my (probably wrong) opinion.