Force Play Slide Rule

I'm not seeing what you are asking here. I can tell you the slide was illegal (2.32.2C,) but the contact may or may not have been. That being said, 8.4.2O implies that when a slide is illegal, there is always a violation.

Yes.

If the contact was on or directly above the base, then the contact / slide was legal (assuming there was nothing else going on -- foot above the knee / roll block, etc.)

If the runner goes PAST the base and THEN makes contact, it's illegal.  (Note that this contact would be legal in NCAA, assuming it's in a continuation of the straight line).

And, yes, PU can get this.

My reason for asking this question is because everyone answers differently.  The fielder is ON the bag at second to receive the ball then turns to throw to first for the double play.  The runner from first is sliding directly in line between the bags, contacts the fielder who is ON the bag, but continues sliding so that his legs go over and beyond the bag.  He is making contact WHILE he is beyond the bag, but the contact is NOT beyond the bag - only ON the bag. 

The rule book is either missing a word or the rule is you cannot slide past the bag while already making contact with the fielder.  2.32.2c states "... goes beyond the base AND THEN makes contact with or alters ..."  The MISSING words to the rule should be ... and then makes contact with the fielder (BEYOND THE BAG) ...   If I slide beyond the bag while making contact (or you jumped and we make contact when you come down ON the bag), but now I am past the bag, is it an illegal slide.  Matt says illegal slide and Noumpre says legal slide. I argue that the slide IS legal, but people in my assoc. say illegal.

The thing is that the case play I referenced seems to contradict the rule. The rule states that a runner has committed interference if he slides illegally AND illegally contacts the fielder or alters the play. The case play seems to insinuate that any illegal slide results in interference.

So the real question being asked is: Does federation rule warrant an interference call when the runner going from first to second on a ground ball slides straight in (legs down - no rolling or pop-up), makes contact with the fielder ON the bag attempting to make a double play, then continues sliding so his lower legs go beyond the bag?

As an umpire that has had to make this call too many times; your point is if the defensive player is on the bag and contact is made on the bag, why would their be interference?

You then go on to part two making the assumption that the player is on the bag when contact is made and then the offensive player continues through the bag.

This is always a difficult call; especially because it is the plate umpires call. Being 120 fee away; you do your best.

We watch the slide; first is it going to the bag, then does it go beyond the bag and third is there contact. We do our best to watch the defensive player. A second baseman making the turn is generally behind the bag. A shortstop coming across the bag has a higher probability of contact as he crosses the bag.

Making the call is difficult; when challenged by a coach my response is always the same. Pay for a 3-4 man crew and you will have more eyes to watch every play.

Wait we're debating the interference out rule on which runner? :-)  The OP makes it seem like the out was called on the runner/slider just because of the slide - while the rest of the responses seem to be about taking the out at 1st as well. If the fielder was on the bag with the ball before the runner made it there, the runner is out because of the force play. :-) Although I think we all knew what you meant - rereading it you'll see my point (I think)!

Anyway, this is definitely a had to be there situation. There's also a missing physics lesson here too. I think we can all agree that unless you're playing on an artificial surface, the ground around 2nd base is not like an ice surface. Speed alone doesn't necessarily mean a longer slide distance - perhaps where the runner started his slide had more to do with going past the base than the coefficient of friction (or lack thereof) caused by his body moving across the ground. If the runner was 300 pounds and ran a 4.5 his momentum is probably a bit different than the 150 pound runner going 4.5 - if they both start their slide in the same spot, which goes further?

My guess without being there - the runner started his slide late and contact was made and that perhaps had more to do with an interference call taking the runner at first as well than where exactly the contact was made.

I think it'll be obvious to all involved if there is interference and it is the PU's call when the throw is made. If the throw is not made, then the BU would have the call.

Another consideration - not only is the PU 110+ feet away (depending on the runners on base) - he is also trying to get an angle to help with a pulled foot or sweep tag at first and of course dead ball on overthrows. With just R1, we are taught clear the catcher to the left, get as close to the mound as you can, stop, read, pause, react. The play happens quite a bit faster when it unfolds in front of you. Then of course you need to be able to look towards first for your next call(s). If there's a runner on 1st/3rd, then you have touch at plate, play at 2nd, and play at 1st.  With a runner on 2nd - you need to see any touch at 3rd, play at 2nd, and play at 1st. As a coach - which is the most important?  Can you afford the 3rd or 4th umpire!

OK. I have gotten lots of guys giving lots of information about a lot of things going on during this force play slide situation.

This is my REAL question.  I would like it to be a yes he is automatically out as is the batter/runner, or he is out because of the force but no other violation, with an explanation why.  (visualizing that the runner sliding has the bottom leg bent and the top leg goes over the bag thus hitting the legs of the fielder)

If the runner from first slides straight into second, with the fielder who took the throw now stepping in front of the bag (in the direction of 1st base - not towards the pitcher) to throw to first.  He falls on top of runner), but the runner slides so that his top foot goes past the bag, is that a rule violation?  What if he slides past the bag to where both his feet have slid past the bag?  OR is this NOT a violation at all because the fielder is in a direct line between 2nd & 1st in front of the base? 

There obviously is no question if he times his slide exactly right and his feet stop ON the bag.  But I know that the fielder is going to get chopped down while on or in front of the bag, and the runner's leg/legs will slide past the back end of the bag and the coach will start screaming that he slid past the bag and made contact with the fielder.

In the situation you describe, R1 is out on the force play.  

Once he is out, we don't need any more information or additional events to make him "really, most sincerely" out. He's out on the force, and he stays out.

Now we have to decide if the slide was legal and if there was interference.

As you quoted earlier, the relevant portion of the definition of an illegal slide says a slide is illegal if "the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder."

In your scenario, in which the contact occurs at or near the front edge of the bag, at or before the time one or both legs extend beyond the bag, it doesn't sound like he went beyond the base "and then" made contact.  

Maybe if you described the contact--what part of the runner came into what part of the fielder with what effect--I could understand how he could get one or both legs beyond the back "and then" make contact at the front of bag.  But I don't see it.

I don't need extra words in the rule book describing the location of the contact to decide this is slide is legal.  The only way he could get one or both legs beyond the base "and then" make contact at the front of the base would be if he did something else illegal, like a pop-up slide.

Absent additional information, I have a legal slide in this situation.  He has a leg and a buttock on the ground, he didn't raise the upper leg, he didn't slash or kick, he didn't try to injure the fielder.  

If the principal reason the double play was disrupted was the infielder's failure to get out of the way of a legal slide, all I have is a force out and a live ball.  

There is a case in the 2014 book that says, "With R1 at first base, a ground ball is hit to F6, who throws to F4 covering second.  R1 slides late at second, stays in the baseline, but R1 makes contact with F4 who is in front of the base, causing him to overthrow first base."  The ruling is "Providing the slide is legal and the contact is not malicious, there is no violation."

The only variation your scenario adds is one or both feet eventually going beyond the bag.  I don't think it changes anything in the situation you described.

I appreciate all your responses.  Swampboy finished with exactly what I had asked for.  Coincidentally today I received a book I had ordered from NFHS, "Rules By Topic - Rules, Caseplays,& Rationales", and the case you referred to is there.  For years I have professed that sliding past the bag AFTER contacting the fielder in front of or on the bag should not be considered an illegal slide.  The rule states, "and then contacts the fielder..." The only difference with the case you referenced is that they never say he goes past the bag on his slide.  The only other problem is that in the second NFHS 2014 book I received today, "Simplified and Illustrated Baseball Rules", page 172 pictures an otherwise legal slide except he is sliding past the bag and the fielder is falling over the runner.  It states the slide is illegal because, "he slid past the bag and made contact with the fielder." The picture is straight on, so you do not see where the fielder is in relation to the bag - on, behind or in front of.  This leads me to believe that if the runner slides beyond the bag, then it make no difference where or when contact was made with the fielder - it is still illegal. 

Thanks again everyone, but unless the people who wrote the rule can answer, the correct ruling here will always be up in the air.  Some will say it is illegal and others will say it is legal.

Here's the problem. "And then" does not appear in the rule. All it says is that the runner cannot commit illegal contact or alter the play.

The reasons I think (until a ruling comes down otherwise) are two principles that FED has for its umpires: Safety first and lowest common denominator. FED generally wants actions that are codified as unsafe (such as a fake tag) to be penalized. FED also likes to take variables out of potential rulings (such as the dead-ball balk) to simplify the officiating needed. With these two ideas in mind, I think (but don't necessarily agree with) that FED wants this called interference.

Note that some "illegal slides" in 2-32 require contact and some don't.  So, if the runner makes a pop-up slide, but doesn't make contact -- it's legal.  But, if the runner on a force play slides in the direction of the fielder, it's illegal (and a double play), whether or not contact was made.

2-32-2c has the "AND THEN" language.

I think that's sufficient -- it means the timing is such that first the runner goes past the base and then second contacts the fielder.  I would agree with the OP that if the wording was just "and" that contact on top of the base would be illegal if the runner ever went past the base.