[UmpJM]

BlueLawyer,

Now I believe we are getting somewhere.

I certainly would agree that, even under codes with an FPSR, the runner is never forced to slide; if he chooses to do so, he must do so legally, per the FED definition of a "legal slide". Though I do not presume to speak for others, I believe that LDUB and NIump would agree - I believe they each said so in earlier posts on this thread.

So, to the remaining point of contention. I believe you misconstrue what I, and others, are saying in suggesting that the original sitch posed in this thread is most likely a violation of the FPSR.

Under the FPSR, the runner is liable if he comes into his forced to base standing up. This is NOT the same thing as saying he must slide. Because he has another option which relieves him of liability. If he chooses not to slide, he has the option of "running away from the fielder" to avoid altering the play. If he does so, he is not liable under the FPSR.

The way the rule is written, it does NOT give the pivot man license to "go headhunting" on a forced runner who complies with the rule. If the runner chooses to run away from the fielder and the fielder goes out of his way to hit him with the throw, there is no FPSR violation, and the fielder is subject to ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The way I think of it, the FPSR severely constrains the R1's legal efforts to "break up a double play" at the forced to base. That is, the option of continuing directly toward the base in an upright standing (running?) position has been taken away. He still has the LEGAL option of sliding directly to the base. If he does so and happens to "take out" the pivot man who is either on or "in front of" (i.e. to the 1B side of) 2B, he is perfectly legal. If he chooses not to slide, he bears the burden of "not altering the play", preferably by running in a direction away from the fielder.

As some have emphasized, there is still certainly judgement involved as to whether the rule has been violated. But the judgement is NOT guided by the criteria that would be used in an OBR-based game. The judgement is guided by the criteria I described in the paragraph above.

That's what the rule says, that's what the case plays and Official Rulings say, and that is what the Authoritative Opinions say. There is no credible cite that says anything different.

The rule certainly tips the balance of the game in favor of the defense in these situations as compared to the OBR rules. The FED rulesmakers seem to believe this makes the game safer for the players.

Personally, I'm not sure that it does and I kind of dislike the way it alters the balance of the game. But, it's their rules. If you agree to officiate a game played under a ruleset with an FPSR, you should make the call according to the criteria defined by the rule. If you don't, you give an unfair advantage to the team that chooses not to follow the rule.

To me, the only really ambiguous thing about the rule is how close to the base the forced runner must be for it to come into effect. I'm pretty sure it's "less than halfway", but I have no idea how much less.

JM