How would you rule on these plays.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

I'll start off with admiting that you [and gordon] are probably, almost certainly right: FPSR violation is how they want us to call this in FED [if being pegged by the ball can be a FPSR violation, this certainly can be]. So I'll start adjusting my thinking, in order to call this correctly if it happens in one of my games. I can see it being a hard sell to coaches.

However, I do think this is moving us very close to "must slide" [must evaporate, actually]; and makes the word "illegally", in "illegally alters ..." the fielder's play, redundant and meaningless. Under this interpretation, there is no such thing as "legal" alteration: the fielder's play was altered, therefore it was illegally altered - res ipsa loquitur. Unless, of course, R slides on the ground and in a direct line to, but not past, the base. Starting to sound an awful lot like a Forced-Slide Play Rule, now.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by gordon30307
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?
[/B]

I think FED does, indeed, want an out to be called on a runner that is forced, who remains standing, who, in the opinion of the umpire, altered the play.

If the umpire is convinced that the bad throw was a direct result of the fielder trying to avoid hitting the runner with the ball, a second out can be called.

I don't like that ruling - but it seems to be consistent with the FED philosophy.

For instance, it is a FED interpretation that if a BR, out of the running lane, causes a fielder (in the vicinity of home plate) to loft the ball over F3's head - it is a running lane violation.

I know that this does not mesh well with the OBR requirement of having "quality throws" - but then again, this is a FED difference.

I'm pretty sure FED wants the runner to duck, slide, or veer.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[GarthB]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

For those of us who have listened for years to FED insist there is no "must slide rule", this is hard to swallow. I'll have to move this up the chain before I tell a coach the the runner "has to slide."

I'll let you know what I hear.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by GarthB
For those of us who have listened for years to FED insist there is no "must slide rule", this is hard to swallow. I'll have to move this up the chain before I tell a coach the the runner "has to slide."

I'll let you know what I hear. [/B]

The FED rule is simple, you do not have to slide but if you choose to slide, it must be a LEGAL slide (Some call this the Forced Play Slide Rule).

FED 8-4-2 b through g (inclusive) spells it all out (it's way too long to type out {again!}). Those of you with FED books, read it. Those that do not have FED books, I'm sorry - I've typed this enough times on this board that it should be a permanent fixture here! He-he-he-he :>)

[GarthB]

Originally posted by ozzy6900

The FED rule is simple, you do not have to slide but if you choose to slide, it must be a LEGAL slide (Some call this the Forced Play Slide Rule).

FED 8-4-2 b through g (inclusive) spells it all out (it's way too long to type out {again!}). Those of you with FED books, read it. Those that do not have FED books, I'm sorry - I've typed this enough times on this board that it should be a permanent fixture here! He-he-he-he :>) [/B]

I would agree with you, Ozzy, but if you've kept up with this thread you would have read the official FED interp that Bob posted:

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.


That doesn't exactly fit what you and I understand as FPSR. I have sent an email to the head of our state baseball clinicians and FED liason for an interp as to how we will look at this in Washington.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

I'll start off with admiting that you [and gordon] are probably, almost certainly right: FPSR violation is how they want us to call this in FED [if being pegged by the ball can be a FPSR violation, this certainly can be]. So I'll start adjusting my thinking, in order to call this correctly if it happens in one of my games. I can see it being a hard sell to coaches.

I agree with you cb and that is why in my early reply to Garth I included the reference.

BRD2005 pg 205,
"Note 342-320: The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves an important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference?"

What is the magic number

Good diiscussion material.

[GarthB]

Word from our FED guy is that this is not a FPSR violation, but enforcement would make it look like one.

"Garth-

The Force Play Slide Rule is 8-4-2b. The play that you are referring to is a different one…8-4-2f. Rule 8-4-2f has two aspects that are rolled into one. The first aspect is the one that addresses a runner failing to execute a legal slide (which does not pertain to this play) The second aspect, which does apply, states that the runner is out if “as a runner or retired runner…does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base.”

(In this scenario)Interference does not have to necessarily be intentional, but it’s gonna smell a whole lot like it. The runner has to have made no attempt to avoid the throw in order for the call to be made. This doesn’t necessarily mandate a slide, but it does mean that the runner has to do something to avoid the throw. In this case the runner is out and, since this is a violation of 2-21-1a, the runner is guilty of interference. Now we can invoke 8-4-1h, which allows for the batter-runner to be called out for hindrance of an obvious double play.

But here’s the rub…in FPSR, there is no requisite for the “obviousness” that is called for in 8-4-1h. Because 8-4-2f relies on a force play situation to be in effect in order for it to be called, however, it’s going to have to obviously not be a potential double play in order for me as an umpire to not call it.

So in the long run it seems to pass the duck test on the surface for FPSR...Forensically it’s not, but as I said it’s going to be a very narrow set of parameters in order for it not to be called in a very similar manner."

My thanks to Tim Stevens. With this explanation, I can agree with the call.

[carldog]

OK. Even though I believe I'm in over my head in this discussion, let me try an observation.

R1 advances toward second and *sees that he has been forced out at second. His 'play' is now over. If he chooses to remain in a position that alters the throw from second baseman to first, or if he is actually struck by the thrown ball from second, I would likely judge that action to be intentionally interferring with a thrown ball: Interference/DP.

Get down, get out of the way, your play is over. You have no right to be in the play. You're out.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by carldog
OK. Even though I believe I'm in over my head in this discussion, let me try an observation.

R1 advances toward second and *sees that he has been forced out at second. His 'play' is now over. If he chooses to remain in a position that alters the throw from second baseman to first, or if he is actually struck by the thrown ball from second, I would likely judge that action to be intentionally interferring with a thrown ball: Interference/DP.

Get down, get out of the way, your play is over. You have no right to be in the play. You're out.

This assumes a slow evolving play. My resistance to calling interference was based on the play in which the fielder tags the base and make a throw to first nearly simultaneously, giving the runner no time to evade. This is the DP I see most often.

[GarthB]

The play I described for Tim was not precisely the one that started this thread. In my scenario, R1 was 30' from second. When I questioned Tim about other matters including a "bang-bang_ DP he added this:


The parallel I’ve typically drawn regarding avoidance on the FP DP ball is to a batter’s avoidance of the pitch…the threshold is going to be dependent upon the situation. If the runner is right on top of it and all he can do is a last second scrunch, that still constitutes avoidance. Remember…the rule reads “Does not attempt to avoid the fielder” and not “Does not avoid the fielder.” Big diff.

I'm feeling better already.

[David B]

Originally posted by GarthB
The play I described for Tim was not precisely the one that started this thread. In my scenario, R1 was 30' from second. When I questioned Tim about other matters including a "bang-bang_ DP he added this:


The parallel I’ve typically drawn regarding avoidance on the FP DP ball is to a batter’s avoidance of the pitch…the threshold is going to be dependent upon the situation. If the runner is right on top of it and all he can do is a last second scrunch, that still constitutes avoidance. Remember…the rule reads “Does not attempt to avoid the fielder” and not “Does not avoid the fielder.” Big diff.

I'm feeling better already.

exactly, we can't expect the runner to just disappear.

As we know in varsity ball this will usually not be too much of a problem because the runner knows if he don't get down he's gonna get drilled.

Thanks
DAvid

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Garth,

joining in a little late... can't spend all of my time here.

I like the explanations given by your FED guy... however it doesn't change the 1998 FED interpretation offered by Bob J.

That still bothers me.

I'm with you when you say that there often isn't time for a runner to make much attempt to avoid a throw. And up until a runner is put out he's going to be running full speed DIRECTLY at the base. Additionaly, the runner does not know what F4/F6 will do with the ball once 2nd base is tagged - will he throw from inside the diamond? outside the diamond? Straight down the baseline? Will he throw at all? Where is the runner to go but still at the base until the defense commits themselves to making a throw? How can he avoid the unknown? And the vast majority of the time, he doesn't have adequate time to make such a path adjustment once the ball's path is known.

However, a runner that stands up straight and takes one in the chest without flinching is either mentally retarded or is probably intentionally trying to interfere. So perhaps the ruling/interpretation has some merit.

It is obvious that the defender throwing the ball has final control over the flight path. He chooses from where the throw will be made. If the runner is legally in the basepath, and does anything to avoid or protect himself, (e.g. duck, turn a shoulder, raise his arms to protect his face) I'm going to be looking at ejecting the thrower rather than calling interference. Safety is important and intentionally throwing at a runner will never be acceptable.

The umpire's sense and intuition that is inherent with seeing a play take place, cannot be adequately described here. I cannot reasonably judge who really caused the runner to get hit. And that is part of why I don't like the interpretation Bob offered - it doesn't leave any room for game sense or situational experience.

Thank God, it hurts when one gets hit with a throw and therefore, we rarely see a runner hit with a thrown ball.

Despite the interpretation, I'm going to have a very difficult time penalizing a runner that I felt didn't do anything wrong.

I've got a game in about three hours; you guys better not have jinxed me!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Garth,

joining in a little late... can't spend all of my time here.

I like the explanations given by your FED guy... however it doesn't change the 1998 FED interpretation offered by Bob J.

Right or wrong, I look at interps as is they were legal precedents. "Legal principles, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, but not always decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system. However, precedents are often overturned or ignored as one can often find a precedent to justify either side of an argument."

Baseball interps are even more fluid. Again they are not the same as the written rule and as we have seen even in MLB, interps from a few years back are not necessarily followed today.

The interp from my state FED clinician is the most current and reasonable one I have. We in Washington will follow it.

[Rich]

Originally posted by fwump
David,

I agree. Now that I think about Sitch #2 it would be reaching to call interference on that one since there is likely no further play to be made.

Mike

Whether or not there's a further play is IRRELEVANT. The FPSR is not only an interference rule, it is a SAFETY rule.

[gsf23]

Originally posted by GarthB

This assumes a slow evolving play. My resistance to calling interference was based on the play in which the fielder tags the base and make a throw to first nearly simultaneously, giving the runner no time to evade. This is the DP I see most often.

But that is not the situation that is described int he thread. The situation here was that the runner was 30 feet from the bag. If you are that far from the bag you can see that you are going to be put out, that you have no chance of making it to the bag and that you now need to get out of the way. If that is not the case then I am going to start teaching my runners to stay up the whole time unless the ball is going to hit you in the face. Take it for the team and get the guy to first and save an out.