How would you rule on these plays.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Fed rules only.

R1 on third R2 on first no outs in each case.

1. Sharply hit ground ball in the infield R2 is 30 feet from second when the relay either hits R2 or the throw sails (relay man clearly trying to avoid hitting R2) over the first basemans head.

2. Right fielder playing in. Fly ball to short right the ball drops in for a Texas Leaguer. R2 does a pop up slide or goes in standing and makes contact (not malicious) with the fielder on the base R2 is clearly safe beating the throw at second BR makes a wide turn at first the fielder may or may not have a play on BR.

3. Slow grounder in the infield R2 goes in to second standing up and is out on a close play. The athletic infielder makes a great play avoiding physical contact with R2(throw doesn't appear to be altered) and retires BR and R1 obviously scores.

4. No outs and nonone one base. BR hits one down the line for extra bases. BR does a pop up slide or goes in standing and makes contact (not malicious) or no contact with the fielder on third. The play is close but BR is clealy safe.

These are my thoughts on the above plays. Thanks all for the input.

Situation 1. The consensus seems to be if the throw hits the runner call interference. However, if the ball sails over the first baseman's head allow the play to stand. If we don't rule interference on the bad throw aren't we saying you should hit the runner with the throw? This would seem to be at odds with the Feds emphasis on safety. Does the Fed. want an out called on this play?

Situstion 2. Since a Pop-up slide is illegal by rule a Pop-up slide with contact I would rule the runner out for an illegal slide with BR safe at first. My reasoning for not invoking the penalty (BR out as well) on this would be there is absolutely no chance (such as a 6-4-3 or 4-6-3) for a DP. I may be on shakey ground not invoking the penalty since there is a force at second.

Situation 3. As a base umpire seeing this play unfold in front of me (before the throw to first is made) I probably would immediately call the interference if the runner intentionally or unintentionally altered what whould be a routine play. Whether BR is safe or out at first should have no bearing on whether there is interference or not. Your judgement may be different.

Situation 4. Illegal slide with contact BR would be out at third.

Now before you jump all over me with situations 2 and 4 I would use some common sense before I have an out where a runner is obviously safe. My contact would have to be more than an "ever so slight displacement of the fielder that is not noticeable to anyone but me". If this happens to me I pray that there is an obvious bump but not so bad that anyone is hurt or I have to eject a player.

Your thoughts.......

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by gordon30307

These are my thoughts on the above plays. Thanks all for the input.

.....

Situation 3. As a base umpire seeing this play unfold in front of me (before the throw to first is made) I probably would immediately call the interference if the runner intentionally or unintentionally altered what whould be a routine play. Whether BR is safe or out at first should have no bearing on whether there is interference or not. Your judgement may be different.
....

Your thoughts.......

[/B]

[emphasis added]

Don't know about judgment; but we are way apart on rules:

I know of no rule that R violated here ["a runner is never required to slide ...": sound familiar?]; there was no de facto "interference", as BR was put out; and, oh, yeah - by rule ["de jure"] interference with a throw/ thrown ball must be INTENTIONAL [or at least a FPSR violation]. What are you penalising, and by what authority?

My thoughts are you should stick to the rules as published and not make 'em up: that way you don't have to EJ the coach you just screwed out of a run before he protests your erroneous ruling and forces the game to be replayed from the point of your invention.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 15th, 2005 at 10:49 AM]

[gordon30307]

Hey cbflouds refer to rule 2-32-2A A slide is illegal if ....pop up slide into the fielder. Interference may be intentional or unintentiuonal I don't make things up. Reading is a skill.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Hey cbflouds refer to rule 2-32-2A A slide is illegal if ....pop up slide into the fielder. Interference may be intentional or unintentiuonal I don't make things up. Reading is a skill.

Sure is a skill: one you apparently need some practice with:

Tell me, where is the pop-up slide in Sitch 3, please? Heck, where does it say the runner slid AT ALL? ["A runner is never required to slide, but ....."]

Also, note that I referenced "..must be intentional [or at least a FPSR violation] ...".

"Interference" may be "intentional or unintentional", but on a throw or thrown ball, it must be INTENTIONAL [by rule] or a violation of a specific rule which penalises the violation as interference. Wait!! I already wrote that! In the previous post!!

Shall we try again? What are you penalising, under what rule?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 15th, 2005 at 11:14 AM]

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

I know of no rule that R violated here ["a runner is never required to slide ...": sound familiar?]; there was no de facto "interference", as BR was put out; and, oh, yeah - by rule ["de jure"] interference with a throw/ thrown ball must be INTENTIONAL [or at least a FPSR violation].

This was a FPSR violation -- the runner did not slide in a direct line between the bases, nor did he run or slide in a direction away from the play. Had F4/F6 moved away from the base after making the putout and R1 continued to run to the base, I'd interpret that as running in a direction away from the play.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Sure is a skill: one you apparently need some practice with:

Tell me, where is the pop-up slide in Sitch 3, please? Heck, where does it say the runner slid AT ALL? ["A runner is never required to slide, but ....."]

Also, note that I referenced "..must be intentional [or at least a FPSR violation] ...".

"Interference" may be "intentional or unintentional", but on a throw or thrown ball, it must be INTENTIONAL [by rule] or a violation of a specific rule which penalises the violation as interference. Wait!! I already wrote that! In the previous post!!

Shall we try again? What are you penalising, under what rule?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Mar 15th, 2005 at 11:14 AM]

The Fed. puts a great deal of emphasis on safety. This is quite apparent if you look at the difference between OBR and Fed. Rules. If you accept the premise that the runner is out if hit by the thrown ball as described do you think that the Fed. would want you to allow the play to stand if the fielder made a bad throw in order to avoid hitting the runner? In the "show" fielders are taught on the relay to disregard the runner going into second. They all know this and this is why you will see them run out of the way. I don't believe the Fed. wants this taught. That being the case and keeping in mind the philosophy that the Fed. espouses the powers that be probably want interference called with the penalty imposed purely as a matter of safety for the players. Although I don't know this for a fact, but, if I had to hazard a guess I beleive this would be the case.

Concerning sliding. A runner is never required to slide but they may not interfere. Interference like obstruction may be intentional or unintentional.

[cbfoulds]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Originally posted by cbfoulds

This was a FPSR violation -- the runner did not slide in a direct line between the bases, nor did he run or slide in a direction away from the play. Had F4/F6 moved away from the base after making the putout and R1 continued to run to the base, I'd interpret that as running in a direction away from the play.

Bob: I guess I don't see the "illegally alters the actions of a fielder ..." part.

If we accept that R is never required to slide [& didn't slide, here];
and that [in this play] there was no contact;
and that R did nothing to "interfere" except continue into the bag standing upright;
and that the F was sucessful in retiring the BR:
I have a hard time buying the FPSR violation.

What makes going into the base upright "illegal", so as to "illegally alter..." the fielder's action, always presuming no contact, arm waving, or other obviously illegal behavior on R's part? I've checked all the current cases in the 8.4.2 range: the relevent [semi-relevent] ones all relate to an actual illegal slide or contact being made. What am I missing?

[gsf23]

Originally posted by GarthB

Exactly.

I'd have to see what the runner did on the play, but if he/she just stood there 30 feet from the bag and did nothing to prevent the ball from hitting them, then that is intent. They are intentionally choosing to allow the ball to hit them.

Those of you who do not want to rule interefenece on this play, tell me what other reason does a runner have to be in the way of a throw and not make an attempt to get out of the way other than trying to prevent a play at another base?

Now if they are sliding or running out of the way or trying to duck the throw, anything that shows me they are trying to avoid being hit and they still are, now I don't have intent and would probably no call this.

[Edited by gsf23 on Mar 15th, 2005 at 01:26 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Bob: I guess I don't see the "illegally alters the actions of a fielder ..." part.

That's not (necessarily) a requirement for a FPSR violation.

Take a more common / obvious play. F6 comes across the base, moves a step toward right field and throws to first. R1 tries a "take out" slide toward F6, but misses him.

No one would have a problem calling this a FPSR violation, but there was no "illegally alters the actions of a fielder".

If the runner goes beyond the bag, or executes a roll block, then contact is needed. If the runner slides in a direct line between the bases, then contact is ignored. If the runner doesn't slide or run away, then contact isn't needed.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

That's not (necessarily) a requirement for a FPSR violation.

Take a more common / obvious play. F6 comes across the base, moves a step toward right field and throws to first. R1 tries a "take out" slide toward F6, but misses him.

No one would have a problem calling this a FPSR violation, but there was no "illegally alters the actions of a fielder".

If the runner goes beyond the bag, or executes a roll block, then contact is needed. If the runner slides in a direct line between the bases, then contact is ignored. If the runner doesn't slide or run away, then contact isn't needed.

Bear with me, please: as I've said, I'm apparently having a bad day.

Where I'm having trouble is making this a FPSR/ INT.

FWIW I think we are probably only a few years away from FED legislation that will explicitly adopt gordon's "safety dictates" interference rationale in these cases. But for now, I don't see it.

He's not required to slide ["it's Force-Play Slide... not Forced-Slide Play"] - and didn't here.

OK, R didn't "run away", but I see nothing in 8-4-2b which, absent a slide, requires him to do anything other than avoiding "illegal contact" or "illegally alter(ing)" the fielder's actions. We know there was no contact at all in this [Sitch 3] play. Thus my question: what makes coming in upright, with no contact, "illegal", so as to invoke the penal strictures of the FPSR?

I am aware that 8-4-2f includes an "avoid the play" requirement for any any force play; but the only penalty there is the runner is out [which he is already, here]- it's outside the FPSR PENALTY clause. So it's not "interference by rule" like a FPSR violation [although I suppose it might be if there in fact was interference (hinderance, impairment, etc.)] - just an out. Ball's live, whatever else happens, happens.

'Cause I guess that's where the biggest part of my problem w/ gordon's idea on this play comes from: R1 is out on the force, BR is out on the [admittedly spectacular] play, there was not contact or other intentional interference by R1; and WHY should the run get taken down and R3 sent back?

I'm having a bad day on rules, it seems: so I'm more than usually open to being shown that I am wrong. I'd just like to be able to understand why.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by gsf23

I'd have to see what the runner did on the play, but if he/she just stood there 30 feet from the bag and did nothing to prevent the ball from hitting them, then that is intent. They are intentionally choosing to allow the ball to hit them.

Those of you who do not want to rule interefenece on this play, tell me what other reason does a runner have to be in the way of a throw and not make an attempt to get out of the way other than trying to prevent a play at another base?

Now if they are sliding or running out of the way or trying to duck the throw, anything that shows me they are trying to avoid being hit and they still are, now I don't have intent and would probably no call this.

[Edited by gsf23 on Mar 15th, 2005 at 01:26 PM]

I guess it depends on the level of ball. Have you never seen a well done double play in which there is scant time betweent the tag of second and the throw to first? Most of the DP's in my games don't leave much time for the runner to do much before the throw.

Now perhaps in LL these plays develop more slowly. I don't know, I don't do litte league. And I don't know if you do either. I am not making a slur, only an observation.

Rewarding the offense for a throw that pegs the runner that the runner did not intentionally interfere with both rewards bad throws and encourages pegging runners.

[David B]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

That's not (necessarily) a requirement for a FPSR violation.

Take a more common / obvious play. F6 comes across the base, moves a step toward right field and throws to first. R1 tries a "take out" slide toward F6, but misses him.

No one would have a problem calling this a FPSR violation, but there was no "illegally alters the actions of a fielder".

If the runner goes beyond the bag, or executes a roll block, then contact is needed. If the runner slides in a direct line between the bases, then contact is ignored. If the runner doesn't slide or run away, then contact isn't needed.

I agree that sometimes the wording can seem tricky, but in several of the articles I've read on the FPSR, they almost all require that with a legal slide there must be some action by the runner to interfere with the play of F6 or F4 to make it a DP call.

I don't have the article with me, but Carl did a whole section on the FPSR last summer and I recall several of the examples in which the runner slid into the fielder but did not interfere with the play and there was no recommended call.

If the runner chooses not to slide then he is fine as long as he doesn't interfere with the play. If there is no attempt or going to be an attempt at a DP, then there should be no call made. (ie the play where there is a base hit to F9 and he throws to F6 for a force out.)

IMO, if you call that a FPSR you are simply asking for trouble.

But, I could be wrong, I'll check my papers tomorrow when I return to work - been nice to be off for a few days and on vacation.

Thanks
David

[DG]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Fed rules only.

R1 on third R2 on first no outs in each case.

1. Sharply hit ground ball in the infield R2 is 30 feet from second when the relay either hits R2 or the throw sails (relay man clearly trying to avoid hitting R2) over the first basemans head.

2. Right fielder playing in. Fly ball to short right the ball drops in for a Texas Leaguer. R2 does a pop up slide or goes in standing and makes contact (not malicious) with the fielder on the base R2 is clearly safe beating the throw at second BR makes a wide turn at first the fielder may or may not have a play on BR.

3. Slow grounder in the infield R2 goes in to second standing up and is out on a close play. The athletic infielder makes a great play avoiding physical contact with R2(throw doesn't appear to be altered) and retires BR and R1 obviously scores.

4. No outs and nonone one base. BR hits one down the line for extra bases. BR does a pop up slide or goes in standing and makes contact (not malicious) or no contact with the fielder on third. The play is close but BR is clealy safe.

1. FPSR if the throw hits the runner. The runner needs to slide or avoid. If I thought (as you indicated) that the sail was due to fielder trying to avoid hitting the runner then I would also have FPSR. See situation 20 from 2004 interpretations where an errant throw from the catcher to 1B is ruled interference.

2. Nothing to call here.

3. If a DP is turned I would be hard pressed to call a FPSR. R1 scores.

4. Nothing to call here.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by GarthB
Rewarding the offense for a throw that pegs the runner that the runner did not intentionally interfere with both rewards bad throws and encourages pegging runners.

While I agree with you, Garth, I'm not sure the FED does.

From the 1998 Interps (the year the FPSR was added to the rules), Situation 1: With the bases loaded, B4 hits a ground ball to F4. F4 throws the ball to F6 who comes across second base and attempts to throw the ball to first base to complete the double play. R1 (runner's notations changed from FED to standard), who advances to second base in a direct line while standing up, is hit by F6's throw to first. RULING: This is a violation of the force-play slide rule. R1 is declared uot, as is B4. R3 and R2 are returned to third and second base respectively.

I couldn't find any subsequent play in any of the yearly interps to reverse this ruling.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
OK, R didn't "run away", but I see nothing in 8-4-2b which, absent a slide, requires him to do anything other than avoiding "illegal contact" or "illegally alter(ing)" the fielder's actions. We know there was no contact at all in this [Sitch 3] play. Thus my question: what makes coming in upright, with no contact, "illegal", so as to invoke the penal strictures of the FPSR?

While there was no contact, F4 / F6 (whoever it was) was required to make "a great play avoiding physical contact". As I read the play, I'm envisioning that the runner is who caused this action, so I have the FPSR violation and the DP.