|
Word from our FED guy is that this is not a FPSR violation, but enforcement would make it look like one.
"Garth-
The Force Play Slide Rule is 8-4-2b. The play that you are referring to is a different one
8-4-2f. Rule 8-4-2f has two aspects that are rolled into one. The first aspect is the one that addresses a runner failing to execute a legal slide (which does not pertain to this play) The second aspect, which does apply, states that the runner is out if as a runner or retired runner
does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base.
(In this scenario)Interference does not have to necessarily be intentional, but its gonna smell a whole lot like it. The runner has to have made no attempt to avoid the throw in order for the call to be made. This doesnt necessarily mandate a slide, but it does mean that the runner has to do something to avoid the throw. In this case the runner is out and, since this is a violation of 2-21-1a, the runner is guilty of interference. Now we can invoke 8-4-1h, which allows for the batter-runner to be called out for hindrance of an obvious double play.
But heres the rub
in FPSR, there is no requisite for the obviousness that is called for in 8-4-1h. Because 8-4-2f relies on a force play situation to be in effect in order for it to be called, however, its going to have to obviously not be a potential double play in order for me as an umpire to not call it.
So in the long run it seems to pass the duck test on the surface for FPSR...Forensically its not, but as I said its going to be a very narrow set of parameters in order for it not to be called in a very similar manner."
My thanks to Tim Stevens. With this explanation, I can agree with the call.
__________________
GB
|