Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[scarolinablue]

Sitch: I'm BU in the "C". Bases loaded, one out. Grounder to F4 who relays to F6 to start the DP. As F6 is coming across the bag, he catches the throw which is a little behind him. After he has made the force and is transferring to throw to first, he contacts R1, who did not slide, but also did nothing intentional - merely ran straight to the base and did not overrun the base. As a result of the contact, the ball comes loose and no throw was made to first.

As my partner nor I saw anything intentional in the runner's actions, and he did nothing illegal, he did not call interference and get the DP. Defensive coach wants the DP, as would have ended the game. Partner and I get together, and we agree there was nothing intentional and we played on.

Am I overthinking this now...does the fact he is now a retired runner negate the fact that it was incidental contact, and since the contact did alter the play, we should have gotten the DP? Again, he did nothing illegal, but ran straight to the base without overrunning the base.

The two runs that scored tied the game. Defensive team ended up winning the game in B7 on a wild throw from the pitcher to the catcher on a bases-loaded dribbler, trying for the force at home.

[UmpJM]

scarolinablue,

Depends on the rule code.

Under OBR rules, that sounds like "nothing" (at least as I'm picturing it).

Under FED rules, this is clearly an FPSR violation and both the R1 and the BR would be out.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Where is the "clear" FPSR violation? The runner is not required to slide, he did not overrun the base and he did not intentionally interfere. The FPSR requires illegal contact and/or altering of the play to be enforced. I think you got it right.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Where is the "clear" FPSR violation? The runner is not required to slide, he did not overrun the base and he did not intentionally interfere. The FPSR requires illegal contact and/or altering of the play to be enforced. I think you got it right.

Don't just read 8-4-2b. Read 8-4-2f. There was no attempt to avoid contact with the fielder on a force play.

[scarolinablue]

It was after re-reading 8-4-2f that I started questioning the call. There was no attempt to avoid, but it was also a relatively close play on the force - not quite a banger, but they didn't have the runner by 5 steps, either. Maybe you HTBT, and maybe it could have been called either way. I see it in a bit of a gray area, and could defend either call.

Interested in more opinions, if there are any. Is there a gray area here? Or, if there was enough time to begin the transfer of the ball from the glove to the throwing hand, was there enough time to avoid? Would this be more like not sliding and letting the throw hit you - but that would be intentional, wouldn't it? This contact was clearly not intentional. Thanks.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

There was no attempt to avoid,

Since you were there, and you judged this, then, to me, the answer is clear--there was illegal contact per 8-4-2f. The rule is quite explicit that there must be an attempt to avoid or a legal slide.

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Is there a gray area here?

In the judgment, yes. In the rule, no.

[UmpJM]

scarolinablue,

In a FED game this is absolutely an FPSR violation, no "grey area" involved.

In leagues that play with an FPSR (FED, NCAA, American Legion) a "forced" runner has two options:

1. He can make a "legal slide" (there are some variations among codes as to what constitutes a "legal slide")

or

2. He can remain standing as long as he does not make contact with the pivot man OR alter the play.

In your sitch, the R1 chose not to slide and failed to avoid the pivot man AND altered the play. In a league with an FPSR, that IS "illegal contact", regardless of intent, and both the R1 and BR are out, the ball is dead, any other runners return to their TOP base.

JM

[PeteBooth]

The OP is not CLEARLY a FPSR violation. It is not your typical FPSR violation.

Read Bob Jenkins response.

FED used to have a case play on a similar situation and the ruling was LEGAL. The Case play has since been removed.

Why!

Most likely it caused controversey in some part of the country or it was simply too vague or UNCLEAR to keep in the case book.

I am with Ozzy on this. Definitely a HTBT scenario but IMO the most important part of the OP

The throw was BAD, Fielder had to reach back for the ball.

Right there could be the reason why there was contact. The fielder went to field the errant throw and contacted R1.

Generally speaking in all major rule codes we do not reward the team that errs.

Now if it was a GOOD quality throw and R1 who did not slide was almost at the base path and contacted the fielder, then I would invoke the FPSR.


Not saying it wasn't a FPSR violation; simply pointing out that it is not CLEAR and IMO something that FED needs to clarify.

Pete Booth