Slide or Avoid rules

[yzas]

Little League has the "slide or avoid" rule. I believe it's:

7.08(a)(3) -- Any 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;

Two questions:

1. Does anyone know if Cal Ripkin has a similar rule?

2. What determines if the fielder "has the ball and is waiting to make the tag"? Must he have it cleanly and securely in his glove which would normally require the ball to have arrived at least a second or two before the runner?
What if the ball is there a fraction of a second before the contact and the contact prevents F2 from holding on?

Little League umpires I've seen appear to interpret this in a way that is very generous to F2; perhaps because he is the one who's defensless and the runner is the one with the power to "slide or avoid".

I'm wondering what you all do and see regarding a close play at the plate. This seems to be a contstant controversy in our local league (for which I am UIC) and I'd like to get it clearly understood and consistently enforced.

[Rich_Ives]

Get "avoid" out of your head. It is not in the rule. You quoted the rule. "Avoid" is not there.

The catcher (or a fielder at any other base) has to have the ball AND be in a position to be able to make a tag. Just having the ball is not enough. (For example: it doesn't apply if he's stretched out to the side to catch the ball.)

As a SEPARATE but related issue, mere possession of the ball DOES mean the catcher/fielder cannot be quilty of obstruction.

AND don't overlook the "attempt to get around" part. Leaping/Hurdling over the catcher/fielder is legal (diving is head first and illegal under another part of the rule). Dodging is legal. If the catcher/fielder moves into the runner's path after the runner has made an attempt it is nothing as the runner has still met the attempt requirement.

AND, the runner does NOT have to slide - ever.

[yzas]

That's good info Rich - Thanks. Everything you said is consistent with how I intrerpret the written rules I've seen.

My problem is that I consistently get Little League umpires who, like I said in the OP, rule very generously in favor of the defense.

Last night for example: Close play at the plate; ball (good throw) and runner arrive at close to the same time. Ball hits glove, non-sliding runner hits F2 non-maliciously; ball falls to the ground; runner touches the plate.

Based on the rulebook, I'm thinking "train wreck, runner is safe". However, BU (not a kid or volunteer but a veteran) calls him out because he "didn't slide or attempt to get around".

This isn't isolated. It seems to be called this way all the time.

HC's now want clarification from me.

So, rather than dictate the rulebook to me, what I'm really looking for is real-world observation and experience so I can decide how to respond to the HC's and what (if any) conversation to have with my umpires.

[Rich_Ives]

That's good info Rich - Thanks. Everything you said is consistent with how I intrerpret the written rules I've seen.

My problem is that I consistently get Little League umpires who, like I said in the OP, rule very generously in favor of the defense.

Last night for example: Close play at the plate; ball (good throw) and runner arrive at close to the same time. Ball hits glove, non-sliding runner hits F2 non-maliciously; ball falls to the ground; runner touches the plate.

Based on the rulebook, I'm thinking "train wreck, runner is safe". However, BU (not a kid or volunteer but a veteran) calls him out because he "didn't slide or attempt to get around".

This isn't isolated. It seems to be called this way all the time.

HC's now want clarification from me.

So, rather than dictate the rulebook to me, what I'm really looking for is real-world observation and experience so I can decide how to respond to the HC's and what (if any) conversation to have with my umpires.

I'd be easier if we had a video to review. Sounds like there is a chance the vet is correct on this one. If the catcher caught the ball at a place where it would be easy to apply a tag then he was OK. He is, after all, expecting to be able to do so.

[jmullin]

I must admit that the whole topic of "must slide" tends to cause more discussion than most other small diamond matters. Someone once explained it to me like this...When the fielder has the ball AND is in position to make a play, THEN the runner must EITHER slide or ATTEMPT to get around the fielder. Basically, the runner has four (4) choices: slide, attempt to avoid contact, retreat to the last base touched, or stop and make the fielder come and apply the tag.

Here is the big question: How much distance does a runner need to make this decision. If a runner rounds third and is running full speed towards the plate when the ball arrives in the catcher's mit with only 10-15 feet to go, it is pretty hard to stop and retreat. In real time, a slide could be dangerous. He will try to avoid the catcher, but as long as he doesn't purposesly collide with the catcher, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Although different codes may disagree, in Little League we are taught to never tell a runner he must slide. ( if an injury occurs because a player did not know how to slide correctly,but the umpire told him/her a slide was required...you can see where this is going.)

[Rich_Ives]

I must admit that the whole topic of "must slide" tends to cause more discussion than most other small diamond matters. Someone once explained it to me like this...When the fielder has the ball AND is in position to make a play, THEN the runner must EITHER slide or ATTEMPT to get around the fielder. Basically, the runner has four (4) choices: slide, attempt to avoid contact, retreat to the last base touched, or stop and make the fielder come and apply the tag.

Here is the big question: How much distance does a runner need to make this decision. If a runner rounds third and is running full speed towards the plate when the ball arrives in the catcher's mit with only 10-15 feet to go, it is pretty hard to stop and retreat. In real time, a slide could be dangerous. He will try to avoid the catcher, but as long as he doesn't purposesly collide with the catcher, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Although different codes may disagree, in Little League we are taught to never tell a runner he must slide. ( if an injury occurs because a player did not know how to slide correctly,but the umpire told him/her a slide was required...you can see where this is going.)

NO sanctining body's rules have a must slide rule. Runners are NEVER required to slide. Some organizations (FED and NCAA for example) define what is a legal slide, but none require a slide. Their rules basically say IF you slide it must be a legal slide.

10-15 feet is plenty of time to either slide or make an attempt.

If you know it's going to be close pick one and do it.

[polar1955]

Little League has the "slide or avoid" rule. I believe it's:



Two questions:

1. Does anyone know if Cal Ripkin has a similar rule?

2. What determines if the fielder "has the ball and is waiting to make the tag"? Must he have it cleanly and securely in his glove which would normally require the ball to have arrived at least a second or two before the runner?
What if the ball is there a fraction of a second before the contact and the contact prevents F2 from holding on?

Little League umpires I've seen appear to interpret this in a way that is very generous to F2; perhaps because he is the one who's defensless and the runner is the one with the power to "slide or avoid".

I'm wondering what you all do and see regarding a close play at the plate. This seems to be a contstant controversy in our local league (for which I am UIC) and I'd like to get it clearly understood and consistently enforced.

This has always been a judgement call with leagues I umpire. You the umpire are first asking was any contact meant to cause harm to the catcher or aid in dislodging the ball. If so, foul (2) was there any interference/obstruction by either per the rules (3) did the catcher and runner have any real possibilty of avoiding contact (4) could the runner have hit the dirt to avoid a nasty collision and still have a chance of reaching the plate. I think any coach who teaches young kids to stand in the base path once in possession of the ball is inviting trouble and it is he who should be given the boot. Without actually seeing a play, giving comment is difficult.
I will in almost all cases give benefit to the runner unless he had clearly shown intent at the plate to collide when there was an alternative. Some coaches go nuts for simply brushing the catcher looking for an out they do not deserve, ridiculous....The catcher has a responsibilty as well to protect himself and should know better. Frankly, I have seen few kids who are looking to ram someone on purpose and will do their upmost to avoid any hard contact. Self preservation! At some point common sense has to come into play as well, the intent of the rule is what is sometimes forgotten, to avoid unnecessary injury to players, not impose a rule which creates even more problems when applied improperly.

[bigbird69]

I have had soooo many arguements on this set of rules. I have seen some umpires do a forced slide, I have seen coaches yell at me because the runner "touched" the catcher afte the ball went through him and the runner came to a stop and tried to reach a foot to the base. I can feel your pain because I cannot give you and easy one sentence answer.

As a UIC, what I always told my charges was this. If the runner makes a obvious attempt to avoid collision, like stop and try to reach out for the base, or step around them, you have nothing and call it as such.
If there is a collision, you have to work. Did the runner appear to go out of his/her way to collide like dropping a shoulder? If that is yes, they are out and per the local rules, send them home (in Babe Ruth rulebook,7.14). Did the defender at the last second jump in front of the runner trying to catch the throw leaving the runner very little time to react? If so, you probably have nothing (though if another fielder picks up the ball and tags the runner out because they were off the base for a collision, the fielder did not have the ball and you may have obstruction... very rare but possible.)

Still, the umpire has to guage what he/she saw and make a decision. If you want to get used to not seeing sliding, just do girls softball for a while. First, getting them to slide is nearly impossible (I coached them for 2 years and managed for one.) Second, they are many times wearing shorts as part of their uniform... I know I would not slide wearing shorts so I would not expect any different from them. You will get a pretty good idea of just what trying to avoid contact is in the younger LL age girls since many avoid are afraid of contact themselves.. though there are a few.......

[Pete_Booth]

7.08(a)(3) -- Any 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;

IMO, a joke of a safety rule.

Very rarely will a fielder have BOTH conditions met meaning actual possession of the ball AND waiting to make a tag.

Notice that LL does NOT have a MC rule as does FED (played by kids up to the age of 18/19) and College (18 - 22 or there-abouts).

Here is a play that is ILLEGAL in HS and College YET Legal in LL.

F2 receives ball (NOT Blocking plate) and is ABOUT TO APPLY A TAG. R3 lowers the shoulder, bowls over or what have into F2.

In both college and HS the call would be

1. TIME
2. R3 out
3. Others runners return
3. R3 ejected

In Little league, the play is legal

Why!

Because F2 did not have BOTH conditions met. He only had ONE meaning he had the ball BUT was NOT waiting to make a tag. He was in the process of applying a tag BUT he wasn't standing there wth ball in hand and waiting for the runner. That's why I say a joke of a safety rule.

IMO, it's simple and would avoid most confusion in youth leagues regarding sliding.

Simply adopt the FED language defining what a legal vs. an illegal slide are. Also, adopt FED's MC rule.

Ripken has an avoid contact rule meaning the runner is out if they MC a fielder to knock the ball loose.

Pete Booth

[catoblue]

IMO, a joke of a safety rule.

Very rarely will a fielder have BOTH conditions met meaning actual possession of the ball AND waiting to make a tag.

Notice that LL does NOT have a MC rule as does FED (played by kids up to the age of 18/19) and College (18 - 22 or there-abouts).

Here is a play that is ILLEGAL in HS and College YET Legal in LL.

F2 receives ball (NOT Blocking plate) and is ABOUT TO APPLY A TAG. R3 lowers the shoulder, bowls over or what have into F2.

In both college and HS the call would be

1. TIME
2. R3 out
3. Others runners return
3. R3 ejected

In Little league, the play is legal

Why!

Because F2 did not have BOTH conditions met. He only had ONE meaning he had the ball BUT was NOT waiting to make a tag. He was in the process of applying a tag BUT he wasn't standing there wth ball in hand and waiting for the runner. That's why I say a joke of a safety rule.

IMO, it's simple and would avoid most confusion in youth leagues regarding sliding.

Simply adopt the FED language defining what a legal vs. an illegal slide are. Also, adopt FED's MC rule.

Ripken has an avoid contact rule meaning the runner is out if they MC a fielder to knock the ball loose.

Pete Booth

Pete,
To me "waiting" to make a tag and "attempting" to make a tag are one and the same - until the glove/ball touches the runner, the fielder is waiting to make a tag, as the tag has not happened yet. If the fielder has the ball and there is a tag attempt either pending or in progress, that fulfills the criteria for the runner to slide or attempt to get around the fielder. It would be nice if LL had a MC rule, but since it doesn't we have to work with what they give us.

In your sitch, I'd call the runner out for 7.08(a)3, and I would eject for 9.01(d) unsportsmanlike conduct and I wouldn't think twice about it.

[bigbird69]

One thing to take into account. All the leagues in the district that I have been affiliated with for the last 10 years (until this year) had added the MC rule as a local rule because they all agree, it should be there. I have a feeling that the MC rule is missing because if LL had their way about it, all umps are volunteer and you know what skill set that has a habit of bringing to the table. (anywhere from very good to very bad) Don't want to father volunteers (who we all say such nice things about here already) to have to make this kind of decision.

[Rich_Ives]

F2 receives ball (NOT Blocking plate) and is ABOUT TO APPLY A TAG. R3 lowers the shoulder, bowls over or what have into F2.

In both college and HS the call would be

1. TIME
2. R3 out
3. Others runners return
3. R3 ejected

In Little league, the play is legal



Pete Booth

No way in hell Pete. Flat out WRONG. To preposterous to even try to formulate a reply.

[kyle_jt]

Pete, dang it, we all know you hate Little League.

I'm sorry you don't get paid for LL games.

Get over it.

Don't post incorrect LL rules.

Lowering a shoulder in a LL game will get you ejected for UC. It can also be interference, which is an out. It is anything BUT legal in LL.

Thank you, and good night.

[yawetag]

all umps are volunteer and you know what skill set that has a habit of bringing to the table. (anywhere from very good to very bad)

Let's be fair. You see the exact same skillset in paid positions, too.

[kyle_jt]

...all umps are volunteer and you know what skill set that has a habit of bringing to the table..


That's just not true. Not all LL umpires are volunteer. It's up to each local league to get umpires.

The worst umpires, as a group, that I've seen are paid association guys working LL games. They don't know the rules, and don't care. They're the rookies, or Smitty's of the group, and get assigned the lowest paying gigs.

What other organization out there has a one week, live in school that's practically free? You can rip on LL all you wish, but no one has better training opportunities, outside of the Florida pro schools.

[bigbird69]

I have worked with LL for nearly a decade as a coach, manager, league Official and umpire. I stopped coaching/managing because the league informed me they needed me more as an umpire.

I have seen the full gambit. Volunteers who think they know the rules because the have been playing since they were 8 and clearly don't. Paid Assoc. guys who use Fed calls for LL that don't exist in the rulebook. (My partner tonight was a Fed umpire who showed up in Metal Cleats... I pointed out to him that that was against LL rules (9.06 for any who don't know) and he just told me, I never heard anything about that.) I have also seen the LL world series where 6 umpires missed a call that I am normally making alone. Little league knows that they are getting the gambit. If you get on their registry, you pay $25, and they send you rulebooks. You don't have to know anything about the game, they have no idea if you know anything but you are now an umpire. I register just for the rulebooks since the local league does not have enough to hand out to the umpires. I have also seen many such as myself, who bust their tails, try to get to the clinics (I would have gone this year if I was still at my old league as the league paid to send a group... but I had to move over last summer so I missed out yet again), always hustle on the field and do a very good job. That said, I have also seen games where the coaches drafted two parents out of the stands to do the games as well. Would you want those two parents thinking about MC? I have had parents tell me that the runner should be out for a collision at the plate when they stepped on the recently abandoned bat, and went flying head over heals and ended up bumping the catcher (quite funny to watch, but at the same time, the runner was hurt, the catcher did not even stumble) Remember, an ejection is not just today, but you get the next game as well and possibly more.

When I became an NUA member last year because we also had softball under the Babe Ruth charter, I had to take a test and score a certain amount which I did easily. It just shows that BR actually tries to see if you have at least some knowledge and they don't ask the easy, 80% of the game is played with... rules. The test asks the oddball, you might run into it once a season (maybe) rules.

Of course, LL does have some dopey regulations (What is wrong with Jr Umpires LL?) as well and the omission may just be part of that. But I don't work in Williamsport so I don't know.

PS: When I said that all umps are volunteer, in the real world we know that to be untrue. Williamsport does not believe that leagues should ever pay umpires, and since their rule book was coded with that in mind, put that sentance in context from that of the authors, not the users.

[Pete_Booth]

[QUOTE]Pete, dang it, we all know you hate Little League.

Do not hate LL - started there.

BUT to my knowledge (and I umpire many different leagues) LL is the ONLY organization that does NOT have an MC rule and that's what I pointed out.

RE: Not yet an insurance issue. There are no head first slides (going forward) and no on deck batters (except the first batter in each inning)

Why! - Medical studies and an insurance issue.

Also, other then an EJ MC is NOT penalized in a LL game as in FED or NCAA.

Pete Booth

[Pete_Booth]

No way in hell Pete. Flat out WRONG. To preposterous to even try to formulate a reply.


Rich answer me this since you think my post was preposterous

Does LL have an MC rule?

Answer: NO

Enough said

Pete Booth

[midwayll]

IMO, a joke of a safety rule.

Very rarely will a fielder have BOTH conditions met meaning actual possession of the ball AND waiting to make a tag.

Notice that LL does NOT have a MC rule as does FED (played by kids up to the age of 18/19) and College (18 - 22 or there-abouts).

Here is a play that is ILLEGAL in HS and College YET Legal in LL.

F2 receives ball (NOT Blocking plate) and is ABOUT TO APPLY A TAG. R3 lowers the shoulder, bowls over or what have into F2.

In both college and HS the call would be

1. TIME
2. R3 out
3. Others runners return
3. R3 ejected

In Little league, the play is legal

Why!

Because F2 did not have BOTH conditions met. He only had ONE meaning he had the ball BUT was NOT waiting to make a tag. He was in the process of applying a tag BUT he wasn't standing there wth ball in hand and waiting for the runner. That's why I say a joke of a safety rule.

IMO, it's simple and would avoid most confusion in youth leagues regarding sliding.

Simply adopt the FED language defining what a legal vs. an illegal slide are. Also, adopt FED's MC rule.

Ripken has an avoid contact rule meaning the runner is out if they MC a fielder to knock the ball loose.

Pete Booth

Pete, with all due respect, I know of no LL umpire who would say this play in your example would be legal. Not only would the player be out at the plate, he would also be ejected. And absolutely no manager could argue. In your example F2 received the ball but you use the word "about" while the rule uses the word "waiting." The intent of the rule is clear and F2 could be "applying" the tag and if the runner lowers a shoulder he has not slid or attempted to get around and is out. Then he is ejected for UC - 9.01(d).

[Pete_Booth]

Pete, with all due respect, I know of no LL umpire who would say this play in your example would be legal. Not only would the player be out at the plate, he would also be ejected. And absolutely no manager could argue. In your example F2 received the ball but you use the word "about" while the rule uses the word "waiting." The intent of the rule is clear and F2 could be "applying" the tag and if the runner lowers a shoulder he has not slid or attempted to get around and is out. Then he is ejected for UC - 9.01(d).


Here is the rule


7.08(a)(3) -- Any 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;

IMO, According to the way the rule is written the fielder has to have ACTUAL possession of the ball AND be waiting to make a tag.

In my example perhaps I worded it confusing but I was thinking of the following:

R2 base hit. R2 rounds third base and heads for home.

F2 is about to receive the throw or has to move a little to get the ball and and now trys to apply a tag whereby R3 "lowers the boom"

Yes you can interpret the way you did meaning about to; apply; etc, = waiting to make a tag but that's not how I read the rule.

The way I interpret is that F2 has the ball and is standing there waiting for the runner. Then IMO 7.08(a-3) kicks in.

To me waiting to make a tag means just that. I have the ball and waiting for the runner.

FWIW That's why I said simply adopt an MC rule PERIOD which just about every other youth orgazniation has

Pete Booth

[midwayll]

I don't disagree on the MC rule. It would be nice if LL adopted one and would make some situations a whole lot easier. But we go with what we have.

If F2 does not have the ball or is close to receiving the ball but is in the lane, then I have obstruction. If the runner "lowers the boom" I have an ejection.

I think sometimes we need to umpire based on the spirit of the rule and certainly the spirit of LL's rule is to avoid malicious contact. At least that is my interpretaion of it.

Granted, they could avoid different interpretations if they corrected the wording and adding a rule regarding MC.

Chris

[KenGibes]

IMO, According to the way the rule is written the fielder has to have ACTUAL possession of the ball AND be waiting to make a tag.

In my example perhaps I worded it confusing but I was thinking of the following:

R2 base hit. R2 rounds third base and heads for home.

F2 is about to receive the throw or has to move a little to get the ball and and now trys to apply a tag whereby R3 "lowers the boom"

Yes you can interpret the way you did meaning about to; apply; etc, = waiting to make a tag but that's not how I read the rule.

The way I interpret is that F2 has the ball and is standing there waiting for the runner. Then IMO 7.08(a-3) kicks in.

To me waiting to make a tag means just that. I have the ball and waiting for the runner.

FWIW That's why I said simply adopt an MC rule PERIOD which just about every other youth orgazniation has

Pete Booth

An umpire can eject a player for "unsportsmanlike conduct." It seems you could use this reason for any malicious contact that would result in a MC ejection under other rule sets.

Your point about not penalizing the offense by declaring an out is well-taken, but that's the way the rule is.

If the runner has plenty of access to the plate and still took a shot at the catcher, I'd have an out for intentional interference with a player making a play on a thrown ball followed by an ejection.

If the throw takes the catcher into the runner's path at the last second and all parties arrive at the train wreck at the same time, and everybody is just doing what they're supposed to be doing, I've got nothing.

The last case is where a MC rule would help. That being when the fielder has blocked all access to the base/plate, the ball is just about to be caught, and the runner barrels the fielder over. Without the MC rule, I've got obstruction followed by an ejection of the runner if I think the contact was intentional, and only obstruction if I think the contact was not intentional. But I don't have an out either way.

[Rich_Ives]

Rich answer me this since you think my post was preposterous

Does LL have an MC rule?

Answer: NO

Enough said

Pete Booth

I don't give rats ass if LL has a MC rule or not because it doesn't matter here.

In the play you invented you said the "bowl over" was legal in LL and it isn't. It's a 7.08(a)(3) violation and the runner is out. It's also USC. It gets the runner ejected. That's why you're STILL WRONG!