Slide or Avoid

[travelball4me]

Is it not a rule that a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd on a close play must slide or avoid? Twice this weekend runner came in standing up on close play and interfered with SS turning double play. Ruling by blue was that runner does not have to slide! So should SS drill the ball through runner next time in an attempt to make the double play?

[SnocatzDad]

IMU, There is no slide rule. Runner is not obligated to disappear in a poof of smoke soon as she is out so tell your SS that to a make a double play she needs to touch the base and make a throw to 1B that doesn't include the physical space occupied by the lead runner. If she does plug the runner you better hope it doesn't caroom off into RF because now the batter/runner will probably make it to 2 that's a live ball.

If the base runner alters her path to get in the way of the throw then it's interference and you should get both outs. If by not sliding the base runner collides with the fielder possessing the ball (including in the act of throwing it) I would judge that to be interference as well.

[SoCalASABlue]

"Mandatory sliding" is typically something you would see as a local rec league rule. ASA Rules Supplement 13 titled "CRASHING INTO A FIELDER WITH THE BALL (INTEREFERENCE)" pretty much covers the different ways your scenario coud play out.

Interference is a judgment call. There is nothing I have found in ASA tournament rules that says a runner has to slide. The rules supplement cited above says "a runner must be called out when they remain on their feet and crash into a defensive player who is holding the ball AND (my emphasis) and waiting to apply a tag. To prevent the out ruling, the runner may slide, jump over the defender holding the ball, go around the defender or return to the previous base touched."

It also says that when "in the judgment of the umpire, it was an attempt to break up an obvious double play, the immediate succeeding runner is also called out." Good luck getting that call. I've seen it happen in tournament play and the explanation from the umpire was "there is no automatic credit for a double play even if the runner broke it up by crashing into the fielder."

[NavinR]

I believe this should have been called interference

[Jalamander]

Is it not a rule that a runner advancing from 1st to 2nd on a close play must slide or avoid?

As others have stated, and you probably know, there is no "must slide rule".

The "must slide or avoid contact" is a statement under the Little League rules 7.08(a)(3) stating a runner is out when the runner does not "slide or attempt to get around" a fielder who has the ball and is waiting to make the tag.

ASA rule 8-7-Q pretty much says the same thing. A runner is out when the defensive player has the ball and the runner "remains upright and crashes into" the defensive player.
Both rule sets are talking about a tag play.

In the OP, the SS is stepping on 2nd, I assume, for the force play and is then attempting to throw to 1st for a DP. You have to go to the definition of Interference to make this call. Interference is the act of an offensive player (the runner) that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player (SS) attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

And you probably know with this play, an interference call may be hard to come by. It's the ump's decision if interference should be called. That's why you see the fielder touching the base and then moving off to the side to make the throw to 1st. Moving to the side gives the defensive player a clearer throw...and makes for a lot easier call of interference if the runner moves toward the fielder instead of directly toward the base.

Hope this helps.

[Jalamander]

I believe this should have been called interference

Why do you say that? Please explain the pictures. What I see and what you see may be different.

In the first photo I see a little piece of the ball just below the catcher’s left elbow. The catcher is right handed. That means the glove is on her left hand. Thus, the ball is not in her glove. I see the right elbow bent upward, probably positioned above her glove. Thus, I see that the ball is not in her right hand. Thus she does not have control of the ball. That means she is blocking the runners path to home plate without control of the ball. What I see is type A obstruction.

What do you see?

(editied to change type B obstruction to type A obstruction)

[NavinR]

First of all, I am biased as my dd is the catcher. She was in front of and not blocking the plate about to short hop the throw. The runner had a clear path to the plate but chose to lower her shoulder and forearm into my dd.

[SoCalASABlue]

I'm curious as to where the umpire was in relation to the play. Obviously this was not called interference or you would not have posted the photos. It's easier to see the runner getting lower and bending the forearm due to make contact based on the still photos. It definitely would have been harder to see at full speed depending on where the umpire was. And it does not appear - again only from the photos - that your DD was blocking the basepath without the ball.

I have to agree with you that this appears intentional, should have been called interference, and perhaps even should have resulted in a warning to the player and manager for unsportsmanlike conduct.

JMHO.

[MTR]

I'm curious as to where the umpire was in relation to the play. Obviously this was not called interference or you would not have posted the photos. It's easier to see the runner getting lower and bending the forearm due to make contact based on the still photos. It definitely would have been harder to see at full speed depending on where the umpire was. And it does not appear - again only from the photos - that your DD was blocking the basepath without the ball.

I agree, you really cannot tell from these photos. Then again, neither can we determine the catcher was not OBS the runner. Look at her left foot, IMO, damn near on the line. Even seeing it live, the angle may make the difference one way or the other.

Having what is perceived is a "clear path" to a base is often irrelevant to the call. Of course, the OC is going to argue that the runner was anticipating the catcher moving into her and simply protecting herself. Okay, didn't say I agreed, just stating what the OC is going to insist was the case.

I also agree that, as the umpire, if in my judgment the runner's intent was to contact the catcher and not run to the plate, someone is probably going to leave or get one stern warning after the play. However, speaking ASA, there is no basis for an INT call.

Unfortunately, there is no ASA rule which would support calling INT. I submitted a change a few years ago which basically supported such a ruling when an act of unsportsmanlike conduct occurred during a play and it was blasted by the Umpire's Committee and the rest of the council followed their lead. Still haven't understood why there would be an objection to calling an active runner out for an act of unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Jalamander]

have to disagree with NavinR and SoCalASABlue.
The catcher's left foot is on or almost on the line. 3rd base is in fair territory; home plate is in fair territory. Catcher is definately in the basepath, without control of the ball. She is impeding the progress of the runner. That's obstruction.

However, a lowered shoulder/forearm is unsportmanslike conduct and an ejection. It is not interference.