runner struck by thrown ball

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not recall that most of us are asking you how we enforce rules. The NF and NCAA have spoken. If they both feel this is not the proper application, who really gives a damn what others think. You can post all sides of this issue and make it seem like people are "ignoring" the rules. This is why we are umpires and you are a coach.

Peace

Well....Alrighty then! I guess we're done here.

Oh, except I couldn't believe I had missed the following from the American Legion rules, and thought I'd post it on the off chance anyone was interested.

G. Force-Play-Slide Rule. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of the defensive player. This is a safety as well as an interference rule. Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule. This rule pertains to a force-play situation at any base, regardless of the number of outs.

1. On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

Exception – A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.
a) “On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and buttock on the ground.
b) “Directly into a base” means the runner’s entire body (feet, legs, trunk and arms) must stay in a straight line between the bases.

2. Contact with a fielder is legal and interference shall not be called if the runner:
a) Makes a legal slide directly to the base, or
b) Is on the ground at the time of contact and the fielder moves directly down the line between the two bases to attempt a play.
c) Makes a legal slide and makes contact with a defensive player who is on or over, but not beyond the base.

Clarification
When the base runner slides beyond the base, but does not (1) make contact with, or (2) alter the play of the defensive player, interference shall not be called.

Clarification 1
If a runner goes into a base standing up and does not make contact or alter the play of the defensive player, interference shall not be called.

Clarification 2
If the runner goes into a base standing up and is safe or out, but makes contact with or alters the play of the defensive player, interference shall be called.

JM

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Carl then offers what he terms a "Bogus Play" which anticipates (remember, I'm looking at the 2005 BRD) the 2006 FED Ruling in Situation 19 referenced originally by bob jenkins and quoted above. He then goes o to say:


Quote:
Note 342: I repeat my recommendations from the last few editions: Let umpire judgement carry the day: If the runner is "close" and has time to avoid the throw (get down or run away), then it's interference. Otherwise, E4. After all, plays like that are why they hire umpires. I hasten to point out that Rumble's ruling from 1998 has had six years to make its way into the casebook -- without success.



By my read, Carl is unequivocally stating his opinion (which I consider somewhat "authoritative") that the rule means that a runner who is "close" to his forced base, neither slides nor runs away (i.e. comes directly into the base "standing up"), and gets hit by the pivot man's throw, IS guilty of an FPSR violation.

I've always had trouble understanding this ("close *AND* has time to react")rationale. It seems to me that if a runner is "close" to the base, he has less time to react than if he is "far" from the base. So, I don't see how a runner who is "close" to the base can interfere if he's hit, while a runner who is "far" from a base is not deemed to have interfered -- I'd expect the runner who is "far" from the base to have interfered by being "willfully indifferent" (to borrow a phrase that's usually applied to another topic.)

Heck, I could even see FED comng up with three "zones":

1) The runner is close enough that he would reach the base with a straight in slide: Interference if the runner is hit.

2) The runner is far enough away to have time to react: Interference if hit, unless he tries to get out of the way (judged similarly to hit-by pitch).

3) In between: Nothing. The runner was too far away to slide, and had no time to react to the throw.

Of course, this would violate the FED's "lowest common umpire denominator" philosophy.

In any event, the whole FPSR rule has long been confusing -- it's covered in both 8-4-2b and 8-4-2f, Rumble and Hopkins give rulings that don't make it to the case book (and which, to some readers, are directly contrary to what's written in the rule and case books), case book rulings that come close to clarifying but only serve to obsfucate (e.g., is the "less than 1/2 way to second" phrase in the current year's interp meaningful?), the use of the phrase "contact or alters" in 8-4-2b and the inclusion of that phrase only in some of the definitions of ilelgal slide in 2-32, ...

Maybe FED will take a look at clearing this up / clarifying the rule. Until then, we'll have the differences of opinion as expressed here.

[BlueLawyer]

1. A runner is never forced to slide.

2. There is no "magic distance", under any code, at which a runner is forced to slide or peel off.

3. The intent of the FPSR is to protect the defense- articulated in both the American Legion and NCAA codes.

4. No code mandates an automatic double pay if R1 is hit with the relay throw.

All of the above, taken in consideration together, means: (get ready)

UMPIRE'S JUDGMENT is the one controlling, crucial factor.

For those of you who believe I never call a FPSR violation, I do and I have- about four times in my career. Intent of the runner or the fielder was not a factor in my decision. Three factors came in: (1) Did the defense have even the slightest chance to turn the double play and (2) did the runner interfere (intentional or not) with that chance? or (3) Did the rulebook mandate a FPSR violation- e.g.- pop-up, roll-block, spike above the knee, etc.

If the answer to the first two or the last question is "yes"- I have a FPSR violation, and I'm going Godzilla to get two. Yes, I will deal with the offensive coach.

Back to the orginal sitch: R1 is plunked in the THIGH six feet from second base with the relay throw. Not in the head, not in the chest, in the THIGH. I didn't see it, obviously, but based on the description of the play, I'm saying that R1 did not threaten the defensive player's safety, and the defense had no reasonable chance to turn the double play, and that there was no rulebook mandate for two.

I positively, absolutely refuse to reward the defense for silly, stupid and sloppy play until a black and white rule makes me do it. And then I will be angry, but I won't quit umpiring.

Strikes and outs!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Good post.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Three factors came in: (1) Did the defense have even the slightest chance to turn the double play and (2) did the runner interfere (intentional or not) with that chance? or (3) Did the rulebook mandate a FPSR violation- e.g.- pop-up, roll-block, spike above the knee, etc.

That is not a good list. #1 has nothing to do with the call, therefore #2 is also not valid.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

UMPIRE'S JUDGMENT is the one controlling, crucial factor.

On every play the umpire's judgment is the controlling factor. Take the play where a left handed pitcher in the set position steps to first base, moves his arm as if to throw, but does not throw the ball. This is about the easiest balk to call (behind dropping the ball), but the umpire must still watch the play and then deicde if it was a balk or not. The umpire could have thought that the pitcher stepped off first, or he could even say that the pitcher did throw the ball to first. As much as the offense won't like it, there is nothing they can do about the call. What the umpire judged is what he judged, it is not protestable. Umpire judgement is involved in every single thing that goes on during the entire game no matter how obvious what the "correct" call should be.

[BlueLawyer]

Luke:

I disagree with the assertion that I should not consider whether the defense had a chance to turn the double play (a priciple, by the way, under which I give the benefit of every doubt to the defense).

6-4-3 situation: ball hit deep in the hole. R1 was moving with the pitch. F6 bobbles, then fields and throws to second. F4, facing F6, is pulled off the bag by F6's rushed throw. R1 comes into the second base bag standing up, never touching F4. F4, now trying to get any out he can, heaves to ball to F3, but the BR is already two steps past first.

And by the way, in many of the leagues I work, because F4 hurried his throw, we have a very good chance of an overthrow into dead ball territory.

R1 nominally violated the FPSR- he never got down or out of the way. His failure to do so also had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the play. Whom do I ring up? R1, who was standing on the bag before F4 finally controlled the ball? The BR also, who was past the first base bag when F4 finally chucked it that way?

And if I do ring both runners up, God forbid that F4's throw went into dead ball territory. Not only did I just turn two where there wasn't even one to be had, I also took a run off of the board for the offense. Now I take a situation where the defense made every wrong move, and the offense committed a rules violation that had no outcome on the play, and reward the defense for bad play.

I think you and I will have to just agree to disagree on this one.

Strikes and outs!

[LMan]

Good sitch for OBR, maybe not so for FED.

R1 has not violated the FPSR, as I read your sitch (but then I dont know how far 'off the bag' F4 was pulled). He can slide in a line, or not alter the play....only two choices. He has not altered the play in any way here (standing on 2B while F4 juggles the ball), unless you judge that F4 was hindered in throwing by R1's coming into 2B standing. "Touching" F4 is irrelevant, and everyone knows that.

But if F4 had control, but double-clutched because R1 came in standing (ie, was in the throwing lane, in F4's face, but didnt touch him), and then throws late and into DBT.... Ive got 2 outs in FED, and every offensive coach knows that. Its mandatory to take 2 in FED for this - fair? most likely not, but FED runners have got to know to slide or get the hell out of the way in a FPSR sitch, thats just the way it is. There are plenty of rules that seem to 'reward' one side over the other....

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

I disagree with the assertion that I should not consider whether the defense had a chance to turn the double play (a priciple, by the way, under which I give the benefit of every doubt to the defense).

Earlier you said "Also, the NCAA book clearly states "The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of the defensive player." No such statement of intent in the FED book, although I happen to agree that is the intent of the rule."

Do you think that illegal slide is less dangerous if BR is fast and would have been able to beat the throw to first? Also no rule book supports taking into account if the defense would have been able to get the double play or not.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

6-4-3 situation: ball hit deep in the hole. R1 was moving with the pitch. F6 bobbles, then fields and throws to second. F4, facing F6, is pulled off the bag by F6's rushed throw. R1 comes into the second base bag standing up, never touching F4. F4, now trying to get any out he can, heaves to ball to F3, but the BR is already two steps past first.

R1 nominally violated the FPSR- he never got down or out of the way. His failure to do so also had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the play.

That is not a violation of the FPSR. Runners are not required to slide. If they do not slide then they cannot make contact with the fielder or alter the play. The runner in your play did neither.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Earlier you said "Also, the NCAA book clearly states "The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of the defensive player." No such statement of intent in the FED book, although I happen to agree that is the intent of the rule."

Luke, actually it does. I didn't post that part of the rule because I thought my post(s) were already ridiculously long & was looking for places to shorten. Here's the text from the NCAA rules (2004 edition - maybe it's changed since then):

SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of the defensive player. This is a safety as well as an interference rule. Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule.

Other than that minor tangential point, I completely agree with what you say in your above post.

LMAN,

I also agree with your comments, with the possible exception of:

Originally Posted by LMAN

..."Touching" F4 is irrelevant, and everyone knows that. ...

If you're saying that contact is not REQUIRED for an FPSR violation, I completely agree. OTOH, if you're saying that contact is completely irrelevant in judging an FPSR situation, I would disagree.

JM

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

If you're saying that contact is not REQUIRED for an FPSR violation, I completely agree. OTOH, if you're saying that contact is completely irrelevant in judging an FPSR situation, I would disagree.

JM

Well, I meant that it is irrelevant in that you can alter the play more than sufficiently for a FPSR violation without touching the fielder. The sitch given made a point of saying that the runner did not touch the fielder, and in this case that was irrelevant if he altered the play by another means.

So yes, I mean that contact is not required. Many people think that it is, we see them on ball fields and in the stands every day

[BlueLawyer]

The NCAA book says exactly what JM says it says.

I was wrong.

I would point out, without compromising the total nature of my contrition, that the FED book doesn't say this.

So I will indeed be rewarding the defense for silly, stupid and sloppy play from this point forward. Like I said, I'm mad, but I won't quit umpiring.

I also believe that if more umpires call this rule as called for in the book, offensive players will be endangered. If I'm F4, when in doubt, plunk R1. I have nothing to lose.

I also have not compromised my opinion that there is no magic distance and that umpire's judgment is the controlling factor. I will just subtract whether the defense had a chance to turn the double play from that consideration.

Strikes and outs!

[UmpJM]

LMAN,

Thank you for clarifying. Makes perfect sense to me.

Oh, and would any of those "people" you refer to be wearing gray slacks and a navy shirt, by any chance?

JM

[gsf23]

So let me get this straight. We are saying that in FED ball, if a runner that is being forced doesn't slide or get out of the way, then the fielder can hit him with a throw, anywhere, for an automatic double play? My pivot man could take a flip, see the runner from second hasn't slid yet and just flip the ball into his shins and the runner going to first is out?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gsf23

So let me get this straight. We are saying that in FED ball, if a runner that is being forced doesn't slide or get out of the way, then the fielder can hit him with a throw, anywhere, for an automatic double play? My pivot man could take a flip, see the runner from second hasn't slid yet and just flip the ball into his shins and the runner going to first is out?

That might be what some people are saying. I know I think that position is absurd and not what baseball is all about. As I said before, "the world needs ditch diggers too." So if guys want to read more into what the rules say in both FED and NCAA, then that is their problem. OBR has nothing to do with other rules sets and I do not work enough OBR to care what they do compare to other levels. The rules in FED are not that complicated and are there for a reason. I work different levels in other sports; you just adapt and deal with the differences. If you cannot deal with the differences, do not work different levels.

Peace

[UmpJM]

gsf23,

Well I certainly never said that. I don't believe anyone else did either.

I suggested that in the situation you describe, a "no call" would be proper, it should be scored E4/E6 (depending on who was the pivot), and the pivot man possibly warned/ejected for USC - though if he just "flipped it into his shins", it probably doesn't even bear comment.

Of course, you would have to actually read what people wrote to form your own conclusion.

JM