FED Play of the Day

[Tim C]

R1 and less than two out:

Ground ball to F6 who flips to F4 covering second for the force out.

F4 turns and fires to first but HOLD ON:

The ball hits the retired R1 square in the helmet, he is about 1/2 way to second base, and ball rolls into the the outfield --

Under NFHS rules what do you have?

Regards,

[RPatrino]

Tee, I'll bite.

I have a double play. The batter runner is out when any runner or retired runner interferes in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play. 8-4-h ( from the 2004 book, which is the only one handy at this time!!!!)

Let the flaming begin!!!

Bob P.

[LMan]

Absent an overt act by R1, I have nothing. If R1 were closer to 2B at the time of the contact, I'd probably have INT.

[PABlue]

I have a live ball runner isn't close enough to the fielder to call it interference,I have a bad throw by F-4 and BR can keep motoring.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Tee, I'll bite.

I have a double play. The batter runner is out when any runner or retired runner interferes in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play. 8-4-h ( from the 2004 book, which is the only one handy at this time!!!!)

Let the flaming begin!!!

Bob P.

I agree with Bob. 8-4-1h.

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

[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,

[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.

[shickenbottom]

What movement if any did R1 make? This may help to know as I am feeling this is one of those "had to be there" situations. You could call it either way. My reasoning is that depending upon where the ball was hit, and how quickly the front end of the DP was made, the runner may not have had an opportunity to exit the basepath prior to getting nailed.

1) If there was insufficient time to veer off, that's nothing.
2) If the runner had began to veer off, that's nothing.
3) If there was sufficient time to veer off and the runner was a deer in the headlights, bang the interference, and call the DP.
4) If the runner was waiving his arms, bang the interference, and call the DP.

Two years ago in a fall ball game I had a similar situation, however, instead of R1 getting nailed in the helmet, he took it on the left cheek just below the eye. Runner went down in a crumpled heap, opened up a gash about an inch long and had swelled his eye almost shut immediately, and was bleeding profusely. The ball was hit to F6 side of 2nd base, F6 fielded, stepped on the bag and threw to 1st. Runner had no opportunity to leave the base path, so once R1 got to the bag, I killed the play, took care of the injured player. No interference.

[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.