Nfhs Fpsr @ Hp

[David B]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It doesn't matter -- is initial contact behind the base (plate)? If so, FPSR.

I agree this has to be a FPSR. I believe this play was actually in an interpretation one of the last few years, I'll have to look it up and see, but
since he interfered with the play, its an out.

Thanks
David

[SAump]

The runner fulfilled his obligation by sliding. At 2B, the bag absorbs the sliding runners energy, and it is very difficult to actually over-slide the base. Its a different story at the plate. Very few players stop at the plate.

I may rule OUT if I see the runner change his angle trying to take the catcher OUT. But not if he's hustling to SCORE and the play was that close at the plate. I am not going to penalize the runner. Looks like the throw from F4 is what prevented the DP, not the runner. I have nothing, play on.

[LMan]

I'm taking the second out, only because its FEDlandia.

[LakeErieUmp]

I'm with SAump. At second or third there is a four plus inch high bag catching the back leg on a slide. Effort is required to overslide the base and thus interference. But at home there is nothing to slow the runner. The only way for a runner - ENTITLED to make an effort to achieve his base - can stop on a dime is to break his leg. NOT the intent of the interference rule.
The catcher should lift at receiving the throw on the plate.
IMHO ticky-tacky calling interference unless PU sees intent.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by LMan

I'm taking the second out, only because its FEDlandia.

So you wouldn't call the out in a NCAA game?

[DG]

He slides "slightly" past the plate and upends the catcher? FPSR, two outs, no run scored. See Case book 2.32.2 Situation C. I hope it never happens to me because I don't like it, but it is what it is.

[BigUmp56]

Good pick up, DG. This is the way FED want's us to call it

2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

Ruling:

Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-1c(f).


Tim.

[LakeErieUmp]

Damn Fed rulebook!
We all know the runner's giving up two steps to stop short of the back edge of the plate. But right is right, and I was wrong.
Although catcher better not have his foot on the white until he has the ball in his hand - if I have to call interference on the runner for not stopping on a dime and giving a nickel change then the DEFENSIVE impeding progress without the ball should be called too.

[SAump]

A runner may OVER SLIDE home, not the same as the "other bases," but what more can I expect from people that can't comprehend the difference.

Div II Colleges, R2 and R1 move with a ball hit into the deep RF gap. I saw both baserunners score "simultaneously," one right after the other. The first runner slid over the plate and stood up and screened the catcher (no contact) while the second runner slid in safely behind the first. Would have been a very close play at the plate on the second runner without the SHIELD. Yet, physically impossible if the first runner is expected to stop before the back edge of the plate.

DO Over.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

A runner may OVER SLIDE home, not the same as the "other bases," but what more can I expect from people that can't comprehend the difference.

Div II Colleges, R2 and R1 move with a ball hit into the deep RF gap. I saw both baserunners score "simultaneously," one right after the other. The first runner slid over the plate and stood up and screened the catcher (no contact) while the second runner slid in safely behind the first. Would have been a very close play at the plate on the second runner without the SHIELD. Yet, physically impossible if the first runner is expected to stop before the back edge of the plate.

DO Over.

Unless you saw one heck of a poor catcher or an errant throw there's no way he should have been screened by the first runner. With the ball in right center he would have been set up on the first base side of the plate just in fair territory to receive the throw. The first runner would have easily slid in behind the catcher and stood up well behind him.


Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

This is what happens when you change a perfectly good (OBR) rule, which makes no reference as to what is a slide, legal or otherwise, to make up candy-a$$ rules (FED) just to make the game "safer" for little Johnny.

I know, if I don't like FED rules, blah, blah, blah........

[SAump]

First base isn't the same as the other bases, neither is HOME.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

First base isn't the same as the other bases, neither is HOME.

Unfortunately, the FED definitions of legal and illegal slide make no reference to which bases, so they apply equally to all bases. Perhaps we could have the FED hire you to change the rule, Oui?

[SAump]

Worse, runners return to the bases occupied at the TOP, as well.

Rats would coach the catcher to wait behind the plate.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This is what happens when you change a perfectly good (OBR) rule, which makes no reference as to what is a slide, legal or otherwise, to make up candy-a$$ rules (FED) just to make the game "safer" for little Johnny.

I know, if I don't like FED rules, blah, blah, blah........

I am wondering why you have made several posts about how stupid the NFHS is for having a FPSR while the NCAA has the exact same rule and you have made no mention about how the NCAA is ruining baseball. It seems as if you really don't hate the FPSR. You just like going on about how much you hate the NF, for if you really did not like the FPSR you would have made some sort of comment about the NCAA.