Collision at the Plate

quote:

Originally posted by MadDogPA:
In a PIAA District 1 Semi-Final game, runner on third lowers shoulder and takes out the catcher on a play at the plate. Ball gets away and home plate ump rules safe all around.

After discussion amongst umps, runner is called out and ejected from the game. Is he out because he didn't slide, attempt to avoid contact or intent to injure?

Should ejected player be suspended for next game?

He is out for not legally sliding and causing illegal contact with F2. He is ejected because the contact was malicious. The suspension depends on local rules.

So what happens with other runners in this case? When does the ball become dead? OP says ump ruled safe and the ball got away. I would imagine other runners would advance at this point. What happens to them since the umpires changed the call after the play was over?

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
So what happens with other runners in this case? When does the ball become dead? OP says ump ruled safe and the ball got away. I would imagine other runners would advance at this point. What happens to them since the umpires changed the call after the play was over?

In this case, the ball would be dead immediately for two reasons:

1. The illegal slide/contact is interference. No runners can advance.

2. Malicious contact. This is also INT. No runners can advance.

So the runners would return to their time of interference bases.

If the contact at the plate was not malicious, it is possible that the ball could stay live to allow F2 to play on another runner (R3 would still be out for not attempting to avoid the fielder).

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
So what happens with other runners in this case? When does the ball become dead? OP says ump ruled safe and the ball got away. I would imagine other runners would advance at this point. What happens to them since the umpires changed the call after the play was over?

Play stops on impact. R's go back to last legal base.

The picture is worth a thousand words...

I don't see a lowered shoulder. In fact, the runner's arms are tucked (defensively). FROM THIS ONE PICTURE, I don't have MC, just an out for illegal slide/contact, failure to avoid, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
He is out for not legally sliding and causing illegal contact with F2. He is ejected because the contact was malicious. The suspension depends on local rules.

agreed.....no legal slide and from the OP, its seems the ejection was for MC....In PIAA the player would be suspended for the next game.

Also, from this one picture, it is stopped action. Easy to tell what the runner did. Watching this in real time may get a different reaction from all.

From that angle I can't see where home plate is either. Is the catcher up the line?

No, the catcher was at the plate...I was standing next to the photographer.

quote:

Originally posted by MadDogPA:
The picture is worth a thousand words...

Is the chalk line in the pic the first base line or the batters box line? I think (in my mind) either one can tell us something.

I'm not doubting you MadDog but if it's the first baseline then I'm thinking that the catcher is about 3 or 4 feet up the line. If that's the case (umps please correct me) we might have an obstruction call on the catcher if he didn't have the ball.

If it's the batters box line then I can see that the catcher is at the plate. But if he didn't have the ball it's still an obstruction call (if I'm not completely wrong).

I see no indication of lowering a shoulder


I see no malicious contact

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
I see no indication of lowering a shoulder


I see no malicious contact

Agreed. And an "illegal" slide requires some kind of a slide attempt.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
I see no indication of lowering a shoulder


I see no malicious contact

Agreed. And an "illegal" slide requires some kind of a slide attempt.

With respect to illegal contact, a failure to slide is equivalent to an illegal slide. The judgment call in this case is whether the contact is illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
With respect to illegal contact, a failure to slide is equivalent to an illegal slide. The judgment call in this case is whether the contact is illegal.

Correct on the second, incorrect on the first. I think you know what you meant to say, but it didn't come out that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
With respect to illegal contact, a failure to slide is equivalent to an illegal slide. The judgment call in this case is whether the contact is illegal.

Correct on the second, incorrect on the first. I think you know what you meant to say, but it didn't come out that way.

Correct on the first, incorrect on the second.

8-4-2-b A runner is out when he does not legally slide and causes illegal contact...

"Does not legally slide" includes no slide as well as an illegal slide.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
8-4-2-b A runner is out when he does not legally slide and causes illegal contact...

"Does not legally slide" includes no slide as well as an illegal slide.

Yep.

The way your first sentence had read, a motivated well-meaning non-umpire very well would have gotten the impression that just as in an illegal slide, a failure to slide is always illegal contact. Those of us familiar with 8-4 understand the nuance included in the definition of illegal slide, but those who aren't won't see the difference.

I'm sorry. I will have to disagree.

According to Elliot Hopkins the phrase "Does not legally slide" should "never" be interpreted as a slide is required, rather, whenever a player slides he must do so legally.

There can be illegal contact without a slide, however, there cannot be an illegal slide without a slide.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I'm sorry. I will have to disagree.

According to Elliot Hopkins the phrase "Does not legally slide" should "never" be interpreted as a slide is required, rather, whenever a player slides he must do so legally.

There can be illegal contact without a slide, however, there cannot be an illegal slide without a slide.

Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

The way your first sentence had read, a motivated well-meaning non-umpire very well would have gotten the impression that just as in an illegal slide, a failure to slide is always illegal contact.

The sentence is correct as is. If the runner does not slide and causes illegal contact, he is out, just as he is when he slides illegally and causes illegal contact.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
The sentence is correct as is. If the runner does not slide and causes illegal contact, he is out, just as he is when he slides illegally and causes illegal contact.

No, it wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
With respect to illegal contact, a failure to slide is equivalent to an illegal slide.

The two are not equivalent. An illegal slide is always illegal contact. A failure to slide is not always illegal contact.

The context was whether the runner is out, not whether the contact was illegal. The sentence began with "With respect to illegal contact..." Thus, a failure to slide IS equivalent to an illegal slide, i.e. the runner is out.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
The context was whether the runner is out, not whether the contact was illegal. The sentence began with "With respect to illegal contact..." Thus, a failure to slide IS equivalent to an illegal slide, i.e. the runner is out.

I give up.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Thus, a failure to slide IS equivalent to an illegal slide, i.e. the runner is out.

You are too close to your argument to see what you are saying.

Runner goes into second, does not slide, does not make contact. By your logic he has committed an illegal slide.

You are making a universal statement that is not universally true.

I'll stick with Hopkins on this one. Runner never needs to slide. There is A. illegal sliding and there is B. illegal contact. "A" can, but does not always involve "B". "B" can, but does not always involve "A".

(Note, we are speaking of the violation, not the penalty enforcement.)

I agree with Jimmy, not sliding is not an illegal slide, it may not even be illegal contact. Repeat after me, there is no "must slide" in baseball period. By not sliding a variety of things can happen.
A) No contact but legal
B) No contact but normal interference
C) Contact but legal
D) Illegal contact
E) Malicious Contact

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

Runner goes into second, does not slide, does not make contact. By your logic he has committed an illegal slide.

No, by my logic the runner did not slide legally but has committed no violation. There are also illegal slides which are not penalized.

quote:

I'll stick with Hopkins on this one. Runner never needs to slide. There is A. illegal sliding and there is B. illegal contact. "A" can, but does not always involve "B". "B" can, but does not always involve "A".

(Note, we are speaking of the violation, not the penalty enforcement.)

Correct. At no time did I suggest a runner is required to slide.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

Runner goes into second, does not slide, does not make contact. By your logic he has committed an illegal slide.

No, by my logic the runner did not slide legally but has committed no violation. There are also illegal slides which are not penalized.

quote:

I'll stick with Hopkins on this one. Runner never needs to slide. There is A. illegal sliding and there is B. illegal contact. "A" can, but does not always involve "B". "B" can, but does not always involve "A".

(Note, we are speaking of the violation, not the penalty enforcement.)

Correct. At no time did I suggest a runner is required to slide.

Here is what you said:

"Thus, a failure to slide IS equivalent to an illegal slide, i.e. the runner is out."

In fact, a failure to slide IS NOT equivalent to an illegal slide. A failure to slide is not a slide. A failure to slide does not necessarily mean contact of any kind has occurred, much less illegal contact.

A failure to slide is just that, a failure to slide, and there is no automatic assumption, by rule, that anything illegal has happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:


Here is what you said:

"Thus, a failure to slide IS equivalent to an illegal slide, i.e. the runner is out."

You left out "with respect to illegal contact."

quote:

In fact, a failure to slide IS NOT equivalent to an illegal slide.

With respect to illegal contact, it certainly is.

quote:

A failure to slide is not a slide.

Agreed. Never said it was.

quote:

A failure to slide does not necessarily mean contact of any kind has occurred, much less illegal contact.

Agreed. Never said that either.

quote:

A failure to slide is just that, a failure to slide, and there is no automatic assumption, by rule, that anything illegal has happened.

Agree again.

I'll try to say it another way.

A runner is protected from INT due to certain contact or altering of the play if he slides legally. That protection is lost if he: a) slides illegally, or b) does not slide.

Example: R1 does not slide and contacts F6 on top of the base (FPSR violation). R1 is out (as well as the B/R) because he did not slide legally and made illegal contact. He has not committed an illegal slide.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

Example: R1 does not slide and contacts F6 on top of the base (FPSR violation). R1 is out (as well as the B/R) because he did not slide legally and made illegal contact. He has not committed an illegal slide.

This, in bold, is new from you and accurate.

Our work is done here.