FED Play of the Day

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

SDS noted:

"The runner needs to veer off once he sees that he is out."

If that is true what about the argument that "a runner does not have to disappear just because he is out".

Would you agree that this play has nothing to do with FPSR?

Correct?

Regards,

I wish to amend my original statement:

The runner needs to veer off once he sees that he is out, unless he wants to get hit upside the dome with the throw to first, for which Steve will cheerfully call him out for interference (if the throw was on line).

There. I might be still wrong, but I don't think I would get much of an argument. I've been wrong before.

[wsttxump]

Besides the FPSR the runner cannot interfer or alter a play. A runner that is out by the force play cannot stay in the line, in this case altering the play. If this was allowed it would be taught as a way to stay out of DP's.

[Thatballzlow]

Just curious...but are the words "veer off" in the NFHS rule book? 1/2 way to first base? I mean, come on...you are really seriously not going to call that guy out for running...which is all he's doing...next thing you know, you're going to have to force guys to slide in between 1st and 2nd base.

Common sense...Common Sense...Common Sense.

[Tim C]

The NFHS rules do not say "veer off" in print. In fact the NFHS rules are silent as to when a runner must "Avoid."

shick, let's say R1 was closer to second base but too far to slide but not far enough to react quickly enough to duck the throw . . .

I am not trying to change the play . . . I am just rying to get my hands around what everyone is trying to say.

Regards,

[mcrowder]

If R1 is simply stupid, oblivious, slow, etc, or the throw is quick enough that even a smart, attentive, aware runner wouldn't have had time to react, then I have nothing.

To me, I don't think we can call INT here unless there is evidence of intent.

Incidentally, I did a search on my rulebook, and couldn't find the words "veer off" either.

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by Tim C

The NFHS rules do not say "veer off" in print. In fact the NFHS rules are silent as to when a runner must "Avoid."

shick, let's say R1 was closer to second base but too far to slide but not far enough to react quickly enough to duck the throw . . .

I am not trying to change the play . . . I am just rying to get my hands around what everyone is trying to say.

Regards,

Tim, in your sitch, where you say he is closer to 2nd than 1st, but does not have sufficient time to react tells it all. If in your judgement, the front end of the attempted DP went bang, bang, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner. Why, the runner is busting his arse and doesn't know if the toss will pull the pivot man off the bag, whether he'll fumble the toss, or what ever, he is trying to get to the bag. If the pivot man handles the ball efficiently, and throws immediately, the runner knowing they are out by a mile, may not be able to veer out of the basepath (avoid - for those who don't understand english) or begin a slide that will last 25 feet. The throw may be off it may not, but there is some element of common sense that needs to be applied in these cases.

Conversly, if the front end goes fast, and the alert F4 or F6 may intentionally slow down to make sure of a good throw. If this pause is sufficient enough for the runner to get off 1 to 2 steps (8 to 10 feet of travel) then there was no effort made to veer off and I'd give the benefit to the defense for being patient and methodical in their play.

I hope this helps.

Sam

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Thatballzlow

Just curious...but are the words "veer off" in the NFHS rule book? 1/2 way to first base? I mean, come on...you are really seriously not going to call that guy out for running...which is all he's doing...next thing you know, you're going to have to force guys to slide in between 1st and 2nd base.

Common sense...Common Sense...Common Sense.

That would be 1/2 way to 2nd base. And you are right, the words "veer off" are not in the rule book. But they are in the self-preservation unwritten rule book, which states: "If you are directly in the line of a throw from a person throwing a hard ball, it is wise to veer off to the side to avoid being hit by said ball." That would be true common sense.

The runner is retired already, and is in the way of the relay throw to first base. Rule 8-4-1h makes no reference to intentional or accidental. "If a runner or retired runner interferes in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play." In this case, it appears as this would have been an obvious double play, based on the fact that the runner was only 1/2 way to 2nd base, which indicates that the first part of the play was made rather quickly and there was plenty of time to get two.

While we are on the subject of things that aren't in the rule book, the distance the runner must be from the throw is not listed either. The argument that the runner is too far from 2nd to be interference does not hold water.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

While we are on the subject of things that aren't in the rule book, the distance the runner must be from the throw is not listed either. The argument that the runner is too far from 2nd to be interference does not hold water.

It holds water for me. I'm not going to penalize a runner half way between the bases for doing what he's supposed to be doing. In this instance the fielder has plenty of time to create a throwing lane around the runner due to the runners distance from second base. So, put me in the absent an overt act to committ interference this is nothing group. Had Tee said the runner was closer to second then I would have interference.


Tim.

[Tim C]

I am not trying to argue this play at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what a FED base runner is required to do by rule.

We could make the play more difficult if you want:

R1, less than two out.

A line drive is hit at F6. R1 seeing the line drive returns towards first base.

F6 legally allows the line drive to "short hop" in front of him, he makes the play on the ball and he tosses to F4 for the force who then throws to first base.

The throw hits the retreating R1 in the back as he is headed back to the base thinking the line drive was to be cuaght. So now R1 is 90' from second base whenhe is hit -- the balls then goes in to DBT.

What happens now?

Regards,

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am not trying to argue this play at all.

What I am trying to do is understand what a FED base runner is required to do by rule.

We could make the play more difficult if you want:

R1, less than two out.

A line drive is hit at F6. R1 seeing the line drive returns towards first base.

F6 legally allows the line drive to "short hop" in front of him, he makes the play on the ball and he tosses to F4 for the force who then throws to first base.

The throw hits the retreating R1 in the back as he is headed back to the base thinking the line drive was to be cuaght. So now R1 is 90' from second base whenhe is hit -- the balls then goes in to DBT.

What happens now?

Regards,

Regardless of his distance from 2nd base, IMHO the runners actions do not constitute an obvious attempt to break up a DP. I consider "obvious attempt," as stated in the rule, as an intentional act of interference by a runner. An itentional act can be interpreted many ways because we have to make a split second decision, understanding what was the player thinking while they were doing what ever.

One must use some element of common sense when umpiring. Otherwise, a whole lot of solid excrement, (you know the word), can occur with coaches going balistic on two bit rinky dink calls.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well Tee,

In this case R1 is not a retired runner, plus he is legally returning to a base because the rules say he has to. That would just be an error.

Like I said, I could be wrong in calling interference. I didn't see the play, so I'm just picturing it in my mind that the runner could plainly see that an easy DP was going to be made, and gotten the heck out of the way of the throw. Just like the pros do. They do not stay in the base line to get nailed with the throw. By the very act of not ducking or veering to avoid interfering with the throw, I say it's interference according to 8-4-1h.

[mcrowder]

Uh, Steve.... What?!?!

Yes, he's retired, and no, he's not required to go back to first. Did you misread?

In any of these scenarios, in either ruleset, I'm pretty comfortable saying that you have to have INTENT to rule interference.

[tjones1]

I would use the following from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I would use the following from the NFHS website:

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

Wow, the FED is again contradicting itself. 8-4-2b is about the FPSR, which is not even argued in the above play. Nobody said it was a violation of the FPSR, so why are they mentioning it. 8-4-2g is not applicable either, since it declares that runner out, not the batter-runner. In our plays, R1 is already out, so the rule that applies here is 8-4-1h. "The batter-runner is out when any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play."

Either the Casebook ruling above is wrong, or Rule 8-4-1h is wrong.

Shickenbottom, notice that the rule does not say an "obvious attempt" by the runner, it just says that he obviously hinders. It does not say that the runner has to actually try to hinder, just that he obviously has hindered.

[Tim C]

Thank you Tom . . . a written FED response that I had missed.

Ain't the internet great.

(Especially with the opportunity to place people on your ignore list).

Regards,