How would you rule on these plays.

[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.