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.

Some of these plays are not complete with information to make the call IMO
 

But I'll try and read between the lines.

What's the question here? The runner did nothing illegal, only what he's required to do. Tell the 9th grader to get off the bag. He'll learn sooner or later.

[Edited by David B on Mar 14th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Ummmmm,

David I gotta disagree. We don't have enough info on sitch #1.
Saturday I had this: R1 no outs. Batter bunts. Catcher picks ball in front of home plate and pegs BR in the back of the helmet. BR was in the lane. Do you have interference? No,you have an errant throw. In the situation presented by gordo unless R2 deliberately interferes with throw by the pivot man I have nothing but an errant throw.

Sitch #2 is a obviously a FPSR play! The fact that the batter gorked the ball for a cheap hit does not remove the force play. I may have interference on this play. Hard to say. Again hard to picture play as described.

Mike

1.Hits the runner, we have interference. Wether it was intentional or not , it was interference. If the fielder overthrows, we have two runners still on base.

2. R2 makes an illegal slide on a Force play, and make contact. 2 outs Dlb play.

3. What we have here is R1 scoring and the fielder making a great play for 2 outs. No contact, no interference.

4. Not a FPSL. As already stated, BR is clearly safe.

** In #2, the fact that it was a "Texas Leaguer" does not make it a base hit and remove the force at 2nd. In fact I think this would be scored F9-F6-F3 (2 out)

jicecone writes: <B>1.Hits the runner, we have interference. Wether it was intentional or not , it was interference.</B>

I'm not a FED expert by any means, but how does this jive with FED 8-4-2(g)

Any runner is out when he:

<b>intentionally</b> interferes with a throw or a thrown ball...</b>

I don't know about that
 

I don't have my book with me, and this is a force play at the base, but not a FPSR since there is no attempt at a double play.

I'll have to look at my rulings, I know FED has some strange interpretations on this, but Carl did a sheet on these and I'll check back on that one.

Since the runner is obviously safe and the play is a base hit, I'm still not going to penalize the runner and I'm certainly not calling it a DP.

thanks
David

Garth, I agree with what your saying but I based this upon two rulings:

1.BRD2005 Sit 320 pg 204 bottom

"Except: OFF INTERP 224-320: Rumble: On a force play a runner hit by a thrown ball between bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or [presumably] run well away from the fielder making the throw. (News #1,3/98)"

As further stated 30 feet from first may be a different scenario.

This is also as stated in Childress's book, 2004 "The Usual Suspects", Chapt I pg 12. Play Ruling 11. "Result: Double Play"

Carl states in 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?"

He does state further on though, "Let the umpire judgement carry the day"

You guys ruling interference on R2 who did nothing but fail to dematerialize when he was put out are just asking your fielders to peg R2 on purpose the next time.

Interference on this play required intent. This is not interference.

Given upon what you based your opinion, I am surprised at your conclusion.

It still appears to me that unless something "special" is happening, the rule wins out. <i>"Iintentional or not, it is still interference"</i> will prove to be incorrect the majority of the time.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 14th, 2005 at 03:42 PM]

Exactly.

jicecone said...

** In #2, the fact that it was a "Texas Leaguer" does not make it a base hit and remove the force at 2nd. In fact I think this would be scored F9-F6-F3 (2 out)


Situation stated "dropped for a base hit" I think that would be R2 out 9-6 BR reaches on FC. Am I to understand the "Force Play Slide Rule" only applies to psbl DP? Don't have rule book here at work.


Mike

My conclusion?

As stated previously, I tend to agree with you and what is written.

However, I can also see how one could conclude that at 30 feet from second base, the runner could very well be, "trying to alter the play". It also seems to me that others who are far more respected than me in interpreting these rules, belive this to be the case also.

Im am very open to getting the correct ruling.

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

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I thought your conclusion that was that it didn't matter whether interference with a thrown ball was intentional or not.

I don't know upon what Rumble based his ruling. I don't know if if was in response to a question or in response to a specific play. Both could have included information that altered his opinion. I would agree that one would probably have to witness this play to ascertain what the runner was doing, but since there in no mention of an act that could interpreted as intentional interference in the original post, I would rule no interference.

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.
__________________________________________________ __________
Nothing in either case unless the runner did something to alter. Being there is not a reason.


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.
__________________________________________________ __________
Runners first and second.



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.
__________________________________________________ __________
Nothing



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.
__________________________________________________ __________
You now have a R3.

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.......

[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]

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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

Quote:

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by cbfoulds Quote: 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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

This is really tricky sometimes
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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 <i>FED</i> difference.

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

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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.

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 :>)

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:

<i>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>

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.

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.

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

<i>"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 <b>has to have made no attempt to avoid the throw</b> 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."</i>

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

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.

More from Tim Stevens
 

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:


<i>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 <b>“Does not attempt to avoid the fielder”</b> and not <b>“Does not avoid the fielder.” </b> Big diff.</i>

I'm feeling better already.

Re: More from Tim Stevens
 

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

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! :D

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, </b>but not always</b> 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.

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

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.

I don't believe what I'm reading, but ...
 

Rich,

The guys hits a single to RF, the runner slides into second ahead of the throw, does a pop up slide in case he wants to advance.

The throw comes to F6 or F4 who is on the bag and R1 hits them as he comes up, and you're going to enforce
FPSR???? And then eject both coaches.

I don't see this as being close to what FED wants. The purpose of the FPSR is when the fielder has a chance to make another play ie. the DP or the home to first play etc.,

Surely R1 made a pop up slide into the fielder which is illegal, but the runner also has the right to the bag and the fielder without the ball shouldn't be on the bag.

I can be convinced, but I can't find any interpretations or case plays that come close to this type of play being FPSR. Now if he takes F4 or F6 out with the slide, that's different, but I don't see that happening since its a pop up slide.

I do have the plays that follows from Carl's article last year:

<i>Play 5: As the shortstop takes the throw, he crosses the bag readying himself to fire to first. Before he can throw, R1 slides, then pops-up on the base. He does not contact the fielder whose throw to first is straight and true, but not in time.</i>

5. Ruling: "That's nothing"

Comment: R1 executed an illegal slide, but there was no contact and he <u>did not alter the throw.</U> The defensive coach might argue the pop up slide "distracted" his fielder who is only a freshman. Your reply, "you ought to play upperclassmen in the infield."

Also play 7: <i>F6 takes the ball and crosses the base, moving three or four steps into the right field side of second. R1 does not slide; rather he goes into second standing up. F6 throws wildly to first pulling F3 from the bag.</i>

7. Ruling: "B1 is safe"
Comment: "Is F6 a freshman too?" The runner does not have to slide as long as <u>he does not contact the fielder or alter the pattern of play.</U>

Thanks
David