--- SDABL NO COLLISION RULE ---
There is no situation more potentially explosive in Adult Recreational Baseball then those plays that involve a runner who tries to "take out" a defensive player, particularly the catcher, in his attempt to acquire a base or to score. Small wars have resulted out on the ball field as a result. And all adult baseball umpires are well advised to have their radiation suits ready.
Generally, most collisions are the result of good ol' hard, competitive baseball. That is, most of the time there is no malicious intent on the part of the runner (or at times the defensive player), just a desire to do his job. That's understandable and in most cases acceptable. Still, certain kinds of aggression, well intended or not, are potentially dangerous in Adult Recreational baseball and must be punished in the spirit of ensuring safety. After all, most all of these guys have jobs to go to on Monday, and that manager may not be as understanding as the one who sits in the dugout on the weekends about his employee's inability to work as a result of an injury---despite the fact that his aggressive play may have resulted in the winning run on Sunday, or had prevented the winning run from scoring.
Unfortunately, recognizing---or rather reacting to and subsequently enforcing---a violation of the No Collision Rule isn't always slam/dunk simple for the umpire. Of course malicious and obvious intent to inflict harm is simple enough. Pete Rose, had he been playing in an Adult Recreational league, probably would have been suspended for quite some time for the hit he put on Ray Fosse. But those plays that are the result of uncontrollable events---a badly thrown ball that inadvertently pulls the defender into harm's way, or the runner who is unable to hear his coach, over the din of his excited teammate or own adrenaline rush, hollering for a slide on an imminent close play---are a bit more problematic. Not so much because a violation of the No Collision Rule may not be as obvious to the umpire for these situations---most are despite what the umpire may say. But rather because of the reluctance of the umpire to "punish" a player for what, in essence, is not only good baseball, but is in fact an inherent part of the game. Physical contact does and always will take place at every base under a variety of circumstances. And that's that. So, citing a player for violating the No Collision Rule can become a very tough call, especially in close games, and especially during those situations where the violation is "marginal."
Still, as umpires for Adult Recreational baseball, we have an obligation to rule on the side of safety when the call can go either way. That is, our first impulse should be to cite the violator, if for no other reason then to "set the bar" right away---and to set it low, for that particular game anyway---in order to prevent further incidents, or later "payback," which can result in real physical harm.
The below photo-play examples are provided as a basis to help the umpire interpret violations of the SDABL No Collision Rule. The first two examples are the "no-brainer" plays which definitely require "punishment." The third example is a bit more problematic and falls under the "marginal" category, which requires the umpire to really think about his decision in order to achieve what is in the best interests of the players involved, as well as the game itself. The fourth figure is an example of the way the game should be played. A detailed discussion follows these photo-plays.
(All comments with reference to what follows may be made directly to me by clicking on the following link: John Marabeas, SDABu/SDABL Chief Umpire).
FIGURE 1. Possession
Not a whole lot of interpretation involved with Figure 1. The catcher clearly is in full possession of the ball and the runner's intent is pretty obvious. Although this is "good, hard professional baseball," it is definitely a violation of the SDABL No Collision Rule. If you ever witness this play, and regardless of whether the catcher (or any defensive player) was able to hold onto the ball, the runner should be called out and, in this case, ejected from the ball game. A "no-brainer" for any umpire.
Note: Even though this photo is obviously from a professional game, it serves as a good example of what a runner can't do in Adult Recreational baseball.
FIGURE 2. About To Receive The Throw
The runner in Figure 2 is a victim of watching too many ESPN highlights (or replays of the Rose/Fosse incident). Although difficult to see in Frame 1, the ball, having just been thrown by the 3rd baseman, has reached the grass cut-out just in front of the catcher. Notice his excellent positioning. He's put himself out of harm's way, yet has set himself up to be able to block the plate once he gets the ball. At the same time, the runner does have access to the plate without the worry of being obstructed by the catcher. What should also be noted here is that the runner (and I think this is a fair assumption, despite the time factor) is well aware of where the ball is and what is taking place. That is, a close play, one that requires a slide. (Even if the runner could argue that he didn't actually see the ball in front of him in Frame 1, he certainly was aware of a potential play for two reasons: one, the ground ball had been fielded by the 3rd baseman, near enough for the runner to have seen it happening. Two, the catcher, by his body language alone, is indicating that the throw is indeed headed in his direction. So, no excuses by the runner here).
Unfortunately, as seen in Frame 1, the runner has (obviously) made a bad decision. He has moved "inside," putting him on a collision course with the catcher. That wouldn't be so bad---if he was intending to slide. In fact, a good hard slide here---even into the catcher, and maybe especially into the catcher---would certainly be to his advantage. Intimidating, to be sure---in a fair way---thereby increasing his chances of scoring. And certainly removing his being cited for violating the No Collision Rule. (Keep in mind that the "collision" part of this rule only involves stand-up collisions, not those collisions that result from a good, hard slide).
But it becomes obvious in the following frames what his real intention is---to "take out" the catcher in the hopes of knocking the ball free. Again, a "no-brainer" call for the umpire. The runner is out (regardless of whether or not the catcher was able to hold only the ball), the ball becomes "dead," and the runner (should be) ejected.
FIGURE 3. The "Bang-Bang" Play
The play shown in Figure 3 is an excellent example of good baseball gone, unfortunately, "bad" with reference to the No Collision Rule. That is, this is one of those "marginal" cases that require some thought on the part of the umpire.
An important part missing from this example is the frame that precedes Frame 1 (where the collision actually occurs). That is, it would show that the ball, the runner, and the catcher all came together at the same time---complicating the decision by the umpire as to whether or not he should cite the runner for violating the No Collision Rule. Complicating it even further is the fact that the play takes place a good few feet up the line, making it arguable as to whether or not the runner should have been sliding at the point of impact in Frame 1. (And consider this. Had this play happened at 1st base as a result of an errant throw by, say, the shortstop, which pulls the 1st baseman up the line towards home and in the path of the batter-runner, the resulting collision would have most likely been ruled---and rightly so---as "incidental contact" by the umpire. That is, neither the defensive player nor runner would have been in violation of any rule, general baseball or league specific. Incidental contact is discussed in more detail below).
Because of the way the play developed, including the positioning of both players, coupled with no "obvious" intent on the part of the runner (as seen in Figures 1 and 2 above) a tough decision has to be made by the umpire. (Actually, two decisions are always involved with these types of plays. First, to decide whether or not the runner would be allowed to score if he did in fact do so. Second, whether or not the runner should be ejected, regardless of the first decision).
To make it a bit easier, let's discuss the results of this actual play and the subsequent decisions by the umpires.
The catcher did in fact hold onto the ball, making the tagged runner out. This alleviated the problem of having the umpire decide whether or not the contact was "incidental," thereby ruling the runner safe if he acquired home as a result of the ball being knocked loose. At the same time (and assuming the ball had been knocked loose) this alleviated the problem of having the umpire determine that the runner was in violation of the No Collision Rule---a tough call, considering the aspects mentioned earlier (distance from the plate, etc.)---which would require the runner to be called out even though the ball was knocked loose. Subsequently, this particular call would have "forced" the ejection issue. That is, the SDABL No Collision Rule does not call for an automatic ejection for a violation. Rather, that is left up to the umpire to decide whether or not the collision was flagrant enough to warrant an ejection. And if an umpire does cite a runner for violating the No Collision Rule, it becomes a bit more difficult for him to justify not ejecting the runner as a result. That is, the umpire may feel that, because of all the factors involved, coupled with the fact that, thankfully, nobody was hurt on the play, that the runner himself was a "victim" of bad luck during an otherwise good play.
For the above play, the umpire decided that no ejection was warranted, which resulted in the discussion with the defensive manager seen in the last frame. Despite the fact that the runner had been called out (due to the tag by his catcher), the manager felt like the runner should have been ejected. The umpires disagreed, instead deciding to give a warning to the runner---essentially putting all the players present "on notice."
Was this a good decision? Probably. Would they have been justified in ejecting the runner? Again, probably. That is, there would have been nothing wrong with "setting the bar low" with reference to the safety issue. Maybe not the best decision in terms of the "game" itself. But then, safety should take a priority, and anything the umpire can do to ensure this, the better off everybody will be. In either case, a tough decision.
FIGURE 4: The way the game should be played
(Photo taken by Valerie Stephenson)
Steve Devan (00), of the San Diego Sting, tagging out an unknown runner. Good baseball on the part of both players.
The following discussion may be considered as “overkill.” Perhaps. But those who have been around adult baseball for a long time know how controversial this rule has been since the beginning of adult baseball. Therefore, the detail below is an attempt to help clarify the rule, or at least present it in the way that umpires are taught to interpret/enforce it. And as we all know, any rule is only as good as those who enforce it, not on how well or even “badly” it was written by the authors.
Much of the discussion is a result of legitimate questions asked by managers and players about the No Collision Rule with respect to how it works, or rather, how it is “different” from the regular baseball rules having to do with Obstruction, Interference, and even “Incidental” contact. Hopefully, the below will clarify some of these issues.
This is not a “must slide” rule. That is, any (“legal”) means used by the runner to avoid a “stand up” collision, such as running around a player, is encouraged. At the same time, if a player chooses to remain standing and a collision occurs, that player runs the risk of being cited for violating the No Collision rule even though there may not have been any “malicious intent.” Umpire Judgment will always prevail. And since the umpires can’t be inside the mind of a player, and because the umpires have been instructed to enforce this rule for safety purposes, they have total discretion in determining if the “spirit” of this rule has been violated.
The SDABL does understand the desire to “play hard” and is certainly aware of the dangers of doing so that are inherent in playing the game itself. Still, while professional ball players can afford to play under the concept of “win at all costs,” winning at “all costs” with reference to recreational ball approaches the absurd, since what’s usually at stake is simply a trophy or a T-shirt.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of “gray” area involved for umpires when attempting to enforce this rule according to the league’s wishes, since it is a kind of “aberration” specific to recreational ball. In particular, Official Baseball Rules come into play in terms of Obstruction and Interference. “Incidental Contact,” though not an explicit Official Baseball Rule, must be considered as well. (See “Incidental Contact” below).
For instance, the official Obstruction Rule states that no defensive player may block a runner’s base path without either “having possession of” or is “about to receive” a thrown ball for the purpose of making a play. Simple enough. Though not explicitly stated, this wording certainly “implies” that a runner has the “right” to take out any defensive player who is blocking the base path illegally (i.e., obstructing). But the trouble starts with the following: What exactly does the rule mean by “about to receive?” Unfortunately, (for the player, anyway) the definition is subject to any given umpire’s interpretation on any given day. And since the rule itself states that “umpire judgment” will prevail then no judgment either way can be considered “wrong.” (Player opinion notwithstanding, of course).
Generally speaking, no runner will ever be cited for violating the No Collision Rule if he slides---so long as the following doesn’t occur:
1) Spikes-up, “kicking out” with the obvious intent of inflicting injury and/or breaking up a double play.
2) Any “roll-block” or “pop-up” slides with the obvious intent of inflicting injury and/or breaking up a double play.
3) Any slide by a leading runner who has already been put out which results in no obvious attempt whatsoever to acquire the base in which he was “heading to.”
4) Any slide that shows no obvious attempt to acquire the base being attempted. (That is, the runner better be able to touch the base with some part of his body).
These four situations put the runner at risk of unsportsmanlike conduct and possible ejection, not to mention being cited for Interference.
Keep in mind that in accordance with the Official Baseball Rules, the defensive player has every right to be in the baseline so long as he has possession of, or is “about to receive,” the ball. It is conceivable, of course, that Incidental Contact might come into play under these kinds of circumstances, particularly out on the bases as opposed to home. But, again, umpire judgment will prevail.
Also keep in mind that the defensive player is not without responsibility here. That is, if he is blocking the baseline illegally he is most definitely guilty of Obstruction---which means the runner will be awarded (at a minimum) the base he is attempting to acquire, regardless of whether or not he is put out. Not only that, but the defensive player runs the risk of being cited for violating the No Collision Rule if, in the umpire’s judgment, he caused any collision that may occur.
The runner should understand that actual contact with the defensive player is not required to cite the defensive player for Obstruction. As such, if the runner chooses to make deliberate contact with the offending defensive player for the purpose of “proving” his case, that runner is at risk of being ejected for violating the No Collision Rule---despite the fact that the runner will in fact be allowed to advance as a result of the Obstruction. It’s just that his substitute will now be the one running in his place.
RUNNER AT A DISADVANTAGE: It’s true that many runners are at a disadvantage when the ball is “somewhere” behind them. Therefore, a runner can’t be expected to know if a throw is “about to be received.” For the most part, and aside from any vocal help he may be receiving from his teammates, the runner has to base his judgment on the “body language” of the defensive player at the base he is heading towards. This should not be an excuse, however, for “taking out” the defensive player. By the time a runner reaches the base/home, he should be somewhat “aware” of whether or not there is going to be a close play. If not, there’s no need to “take out” the defensive player who may be blocking his way. If the runner does sense the ball is about to arrive, however, he should be sliding---not only to ensure there is no stand-up collision, but also because that’s just good baseball.
As a defensive player, you do not have a “right” to half the base or half of home plate without possession of, or are not about to receive, the ball. That is, you can’t allow “limited” access to a base or home in anticipation of the play eventually developing there. If there is no play taking place, or a play is not imminent, the runner must have full access (or rather, all the access he desires) to the base and/or home. Period. You run the risk of an Obstruction call at the very least, and at most possible ejection for violating the No Collision Rule if a collision occurs.
Like just about everything else when it comes to most rules, “about to receive a throw” is (once again) based on umpire judgment. There is no specific rule in any baseball rulebook that defines “about to receive.” There are, however, plenty of Casebook cases and other (subjective) guidelines offered. The below is the best than can be offered, despite the fact that both scenarios are arguable.
1) A throw from an infielder: Once an infielder has fielded the ball and has readied himself to throw, the defensive player (for instance, the catcher) may consider the throw “as about to be received” and block the plate---so long as the runner has not already arrived at the plate and the ball has not yet left the infielder’s hand. (Applies to plays at any base).
2) A throw from an outfielder: Once the ball has been thrown and has “crossed the infield plane” the defensive player (for instance, the catcher) may consider the throw “as about to be received” and therefore block the plate---so long as the runner has not already arrived at the plate and so long as the throw is “online” and coming at fairly “high velocity”. (That is, if a weak throw has caused the ball to just “trickle” into the infield, this would not justify a throw as “about to be received.” Umpire judgment). As above, this applies to plays at any base, not just home. Keep in mind, however, that the “infield plane” reference used above for plays at home will be “moved” accordingly by the umpire for plays at the bases. Obviously, it’s a “distance” thing.
First of all, there is no explicit rule in any rulebook that defines Incidental Contact. It is merely a guideline offered, usually in casebooks, to umpires when dealing with that gray area during those situations in which neither an Obstruction or Interference should be called for the following reason When the location of a thrown ball has caused the defensive player attempting to catch it and the runner attempting to acquire a base draws both players together at the same point in space and time --- the proverbial “bang-bang” play. The point being that each player has the “right” to be where he is in his attempt to perform his job, so neither should be cited for any violation. (Umpire judgment, of course).
Example: A play we’ve all seen---batter hits a grounder to the shortstop, who fields but whose throw to 1st is up the line towards home (and in the base path) of the on-coming batter-runner. Suddenly the ball, the 1st baseman, and the batter-runner all meet at the same time---bang!---a collision occurs. Sometimes the runner recovers and acquires 1st safely, sometimes not. In either case, there is no Obstruction or Interference violation on either player, since both were where they were supposed to be with reference to performing their jobs. Therefore, the collision is considered “incidental” to the play and whatever happens, happens.
Caution: Most plays adjudged as being “incidental contact” take place at 1st base, as in the above example. This doesn’t mean that they don’t occur at any other base/home. They do. But, because most “bang-bang” plays at bases other than 1st usually result in a slide by the runner (or at least it “should”), as opposed to his being able to “run through” 1st base, which sets up the “acceptable” risk that a collision could occur with no violation on either player’s part. Therefore, any stand-up collisions that result at bases other than 1st have an “excellent” chance of being ruled as a violation of the No Collision Rule, since sliding is not only an “option,” but also because sliding just makes perfect sense.. Those situations, however, where there is stand-up contact between the bases (say, halfway or so) will most likely be treated as an Obstruction on the part of the defensive player. Basically/justifiably/historically, the runner will (“always”)be given the benefit of the doubt out on the base path for obvious reasons --- unless, of course, it is obvious that the runner has made some kind of intentional/blatant move to cause the collision. (Most commonly seen during “run-downs”). Again, umpire judgment.
SUGGESTION FOR DEALING WITH UMPIRE JUDGMENT:
Simply this---eliminate it. That is, if the situation calls for a slide---then slide. If sliding is not an option---then go around. (Or, admittedly a “weak” option, “give yourself up” if being tagged out is imminent). Remember, the umpires have been asked to enforce this rule based on safety considerations---not on whether it is “good,” baseball.