DG,
Other than your 2nd sentence, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say in your post.
However, if the game is being played under a code with the FPSR (let's say FED, for example) your ruling would be wrong - as in incorrect; i.e., a misapplication of the rules. Your judgement that the pivot man
should have been able to avoid the runner (which, in the general case, I happen to agree with) is completely irrelevant to the proper call on the play.
Because, under the FED FPSR rule, it
is, both by rule and official interpretation, interference. The FED FPSR rule dramatically changes the "balance of the game" in favor of the defense.
If the runner is forced, he
must either:
1. Slide legally directly to the bag
or
2. Run in a direction away from the fielder
If he fails to do so and "alters the play" (or contacts the fielder), he has, by rule, interfered. Both he and the BR are out. Any other runners return to their TOP base. That's what the rule says, and that's what the case play and interpretation say. There is no interpretation that says otherwise.
There is a degree of ambiguity in the rule and the case play. Specifically, there is no specific criteria regarding how close the runner must be to his "forced to" base for the FPSR to be in effect. The case play suggests that if the runner is "less than halfway", he is not subject to the FPSR.
This is what Carl C. said in one of a series of articles on the subject on 12/1703: (if you're a paid subscriber, you can read itself here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3524)
Quote:
...Play 11: The ball is smashed on one hop to F6, who flips to second. The throw to first nails R1 in the helmet. He is perhaps thirty feet from second when he is hit. ...
The Answers
...11. Ruling: Double play.
Comment: The priest would assign at least 10 Hail Mary’s as penance for your language. But the play is based on a Rumble ruling in the FED News, #1, March 1998. (You’ll recall that was the year he restructured the Force-Play-Slide Rule at 8-4-2b, c, and d. It’s clear he was up on what the Committee wanted.) ...
|
Dave Emerling also wrote a (profusely illustrated) series on the subject which can be found here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4225 .
As described, the original play is
almost certainly a violation by the R1 of the FPSR. I say it that way, because I didn't see the play. The pivot man may have "gone out of his way" to
intentionally hit the R1 with the throw, rather than legitimately trying to complete the DP. The "slow" R1 may have been initiating a legal slide when the throw hit him. But, as presented, it's a violation. So, there are certainly elements of judgement, but whether or not the pivot man "should have" been able to throw around the runner ain't one of them.
Some have suggested that the rule only protects the "safety" of the pivot man - not that of the runner. Balderdash! The safety of both is afforded equal protection.
Others have suggested that it is only the force at the "forced to" base that is contemplated. That is utter nonsense. If that were true, the penalty would not be an "automatic" double play, it would simply be the forced runner being called out.
LDUB and a couple of others seem to understand this. Many others seem to "not like" the rule and feel they can
ignore it if they judge that the pivot man
should have been able to complete the throw. I'm not particularly fond of the significant shift in the balance of the game in favor of the defense created by this rule either, but it IS a rule.
If I teach my players to comply with this rule, my opponent does not, and you, as umpires, choose to ignore it, you have given my opponent an unfair advantage.
I challenge any of you to provide a credible rule reference, case play, or interpretation that says I misconstrue how the rule should be applied. If you can, I'm all ears (eyes?), because I don't particularly like the rule either. I don't think one exists. Yet.
JM