Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoachJM
Carl then offers what he terms a "Bogus Play" which anticipates (remember, I'm looking at the 2005 BRD) the 2006 FED Ruling in Situation 19 referenced originally by bob jenkins and quoted above. He then goes o to say:
Quote:
Note 342: I repeat my recommendations from the last few editions: Let umpire judgement carry the day: If the runner is "close" and has time to avoid the throw (get down or run away), then it's interference. Otherwise, E4. After all, plays like that are why they hire umpires. I hasten to point out that Rumble's ruling from 1998 has had six years to make its way into the casebook -- without success.
By my read, Carl is unequivocally stating his opinion (which I consider somewhat "authoritative") that the rule means that a runner who is "close" to his forced base, neither slides nor runs away (i.e. comes directly into the base "standing up"), and gets hit by the pivot man's throw, IS guilty of an FPSR violation.
|
I've always had trouble understanding this ("close *AND* has time to react")rationale. It seems to me that if a runner is "close" to the base, he has less time to react than if he is "far" from the base. So, I don't see how a runner who is "close" to the base can interfere if he's hit, while a runner who is "far" from a base is not deemed to have interfered -- I'd expect the runner who is "far" from the base to have interfered by being "willfully indifferent" (to borrow a phrase that's usually applied to another topic.)
Heck, I could even see FED comng up with three "zones":
1) The runner is close enough that he would reach the base with a straight in slide: Interference if the runner is hit.
2) The runner is far enough away to have time to react: Interference if hit, unless he tries to get out of the way (judged similarly to hit-by pitch).
3) In between: Nothing. The runner was too far away to slide, and had no time to react to the throw.
Of course, this would violate the FED's "lowest common umpire denominator" philosophy.
In any event, the whole FPSR rule has long been confusing -- it's covered in both 8-4-2b and 8-4-2f, Rumble and Hopkins give rulings that don't make it to the case book (and which, to some readers, are directly contrary to what's written in the rule and case books), case book rulings that come close to clarifying but only serve to obsfucate (e.g., is the "less than 1/2 way to second" phrase in the current year's interp meaningful?), the use of the phrase "contact or alters" in 8-4-2b and the inclusion of that phrase only in some of the definitions of ilelgal slide in 2-32, ...
Maybe FED will take a look at clearing this up / clarifying the rule. Until then, we'll have the differences of opinion as expressed here.