(continued from Part I)
So, while there has certainly been a lot of "you think/I think" commentary, the actual rules, interpretations, and (to my mind) authoritative opinions have also been posted. They ALL support the notion that a forced runner who is "close to" his force base MUST either slide legally or run away from from the fielder. If he fails to do either of these things AND "alters the play", he is, by rule, declared out and so is the BR.
Now you continue to suggest that this is a judgement call - I certainly agree. But it seems to me that we have a difference of opinion on what the umpire is properly judging in these situations.
When you say things like:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
...I am not calling interference based on how far they have come to second. The fielder better figure out a way to throw the ball to first then what was described.
|
or
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
...If you want to call an runner out just for running in their running path, then go right ahead and call that. I feel the defense should do something to make a better play. ...
|
it leads me to believe that you are ignoring both the text and spirit of the rule in making your ruling on the play - because you don't particularly like the rule. I don't particularly like the rule either.
I certainly agree that there are significant elements of judgement involved in making the correct call in these situations. The rule is completely ambiguous as to how close is "close enough" for the rule to be in effect. The 2006 FED ruling is a step in the right direction, but there is clearly a lot of remaining ambiguity. There are also significant elements of judgement regarding the runner's actions as to whether his slide (should he choose to slide) is "direct enough" to the base and whether it was legal in all respects. If he chooses not to slide, the umpire must judge whether he "ran away" to a sufficient degree to be excused from liability for an FPSR violation. The umpire must judge whether the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to complete the DP or whether he intentionally went out of his way to hit the runner with the throw or initiate contact with the runner. Finally, the umpire must judge whether there was contact and/or an "alteration of the play". I think we agree that there's a whole lot of umpire judgement involved.
However, if the runner chooses NOT to slide, and he chooses NOT to run away, and he is hit by the throw while in "close proximity" to the base, he HAS violated the rule. Your judgement that the fielder should have been able to find a way to throw around the runner who chooses to come into the base standing up is completely irrelevant to the proper call in a game played with an FPSR rule. While it would be essentially relevant in a game played without an FPSR rule.
Suggesting that being hit by the throw is NOT altering the play or that the FPSR allows the runner to come into the base standing up and alter the play is insupportable. If you rule this way, you have misapplied the rules. If you have any credible cite that says otherwise, I'm all ears.
Personally, I wish they'd just get rid of the FPSR. Until they do, I would ask that the umpires properly enforce it - as the rules require, whether you like the rule or not.
JM