rundown

If a head-first slide is dangerous in one situation, it's dangerous in all situations. I would say that if you are going to modify the rules for this sort of safety feature, then modify it completely...

quote:

Originally posted by ceastonoh:
I say the minute the pitcher came at him it became a rundown

So, if R3 is stealing home, without hesitation, and the pitcher disengages and steps towards home to make his throw....that's a rundown?

2 things can occur......when you write your own rules and do it poorly, you get these issues.....or when an umpire is poorly trained you get these issues....

Leagues may write the rules, but its the umpire who intreprets it....in your case, as I read your rule, I would call this a run-down situation based on the following....but your umpire interpreted it differnetly.....

From OBR definitions.....

A Run-Down: Is the act of the defense in an attempt to put out a runner between bases...

But my main concern is why the UIC felt he could overide the BU inital call......so its the quality of umpire Id be most concerned with.....

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
2 things can occur......when you write your own rules and do it poorly

Exactly...the so-called "league specific rule" was not very specific.

I prefer a definition heard at proschool....a rundown occurs when the defense traps a runner between bases.

Me too PIAA... why is the home plate ump coming down there and stirring up the pot?

on the "safety" note, i don't think you make the game safer telling a kid they can't slide head first. sometimes your body angle and where the fielder are will dictate what type of slide you have to use...

one last point...in regards to your local rules....

On one hand you have elimanted head first slides as a safety rule, yet you have also eliminated the malicious contact rule.

For 15-18 yrs who are used to FED rules, this is foolhardy...... wondering why you would players to instigate malicious contact allow this when the other local rules are safety oriented....????

quote:

No malicious contact rule is in effect. Runners may slide head first when returning to a base or to any base in a run-down situation.

I think piaa_ump is referring to this and to go to everyone's comment that wording is so important in making rules I read this as you cannot have someone run over another player due to this rule "no malicious contact" being in effect - as in saying no you cannot have physical contact.

But after reading it a few times it can be read that there is no "malicious contact" rule in effect.

Where you place the "emphasis" on what's said, or punctuation if you will, is what helps determine meaning with some people.

Similar to this thing you find on the internet floating around....

quote:

''Let's eat Grandma!'' or, ''Let's eat, Grandma!''

Punctuation saves lives. Use it. Save a life.

I question the reasoning behind the no head first slides. There has been extensive research and there are no support above the age group U10s for injuries. LL has this rule in 12s and down and they simply say no headfirst advancing, returning is OK. Personally I would take it out but that's a league's choice.

Thanks to all who contributed. Those who questioned our "no-Head first slide" rule, (and coach2709, please note the my punctuation that you have taught me - it will be added to the "no malicious contact" rule) you are preaching to the choir. We have 9 communities involved and each commissioner gets a vote. I may be the pilot but the ship goes where the most tugboat captains push it.
I had a good laugh at our "No malicious contact" wording. Of course I'll bet 99% of home plate meetings got this right, but as I used to say to my old friend "Our rules are always one year behind our sharpest coach!" So I will fix the punctuation.
But wouldn't you have to write it "No no malicious contact"? Just kidding guys.....
As to the quality of the umpires, I would place them at the 13 - 14 old level with much to learn. The BU had shorts and tennis shoes on, did not know that "A" position IS NOT in the 1st base coaching box, and once assumed his "B" position but I had to ask him to move since my R1 could not see the pitcher. Yes he was that far off! With so many good umpire associations to choose from, I can't understand how this community thinks they are better off with in-house umpires.
Finally, I want to answer Jimmy03's point

quote:

So, if R3 is stealing home, without hesitation, and the pitcher disengages and steps towards home to make his throw....that's a rundown?

You're asking me? Seriously though, I would say I have just been educated. The answer is yes, that's a rundown. I don't believe changing direction, a condition applied by the umps in the game in question, is a part of the equation or fits the definition.

quote:

Originally posted by ceastonoh:

You're asking me? Seriously though, I would say I have just been educated. The answer is yes, that's a rundown. I don't believe changing direction, a condition applied by the umps in the game in question, is a part of the equation or fits the definition.

I disagree. Your logic would call a throw down from the catcher on a steal of second a rundown. There is a difference between a play on a steal and a rundown.

quote:

Originally posted by ceastonoh:
Here is the entire rule so if anyone has any suggestions we will certainly be interested in implementing them:
8. No headfirst sliding when advancing. No malicious contact rule is in effect. Runners may slide head first when returning to a base or to any base in a run-down situation.

....As to the quality of the umpires, I would place them at the 13 - 14 old level with much to learn.

Thanks,

Considering the level of umpires, I would strongly recommend removing the last segment of the rule to simplify. In fact, even if you had seasoned umps, this would still be the way to go.

Revise to..
-No headfirst sliding when advancing. Runners may slide head first only when returning to a base. The "No malicious contact" rule is in effect.

This would likely be a minor revision that would pass easily across all voting parties as opposed to trying to remove the "no head first sliding" all together.