Contact resulting from a runner who is not legally sliding which happens after the throw is still interference.

Not forced to slide?
 

Do we all agree that a runner is never forced to slide? The FED commentary says exactly that. Then it says if he does slide, he must do so legally. That seems simple enough to me.

Forgive me for saying this, but those of you who are saying that R1 doesn't have to slide but if F4 or F6 beans him, his batter is out, are saying the same thing. "You don't have to slide. But if you don't, and the defense plunks you, you AND your batter are out." That's saying you have to slide, which stands the whole "a runner is never forced to slide" thing on its head.

What happens if he peels off 45 feet from second and is standing in the right field grass when F6 plunks him? Is his BR still out?

Sounds like there is a penalty for not sliding- i.e., he's forced to slide.

Get down or out of the way at second base. Not 45 feet from second, not 10 feet from second- AT second.

Strikes and outs!

This is not about sliding. It's about getting hit by a throw after being forced out by not making any effort to not get hit by the throw. The evidence points to FED wanting this called FPSR if it happens close to 2B, at least from this juror.

BlueLawyer,

Now I believe we are getting somewhere.

I certainly would agree that, even under codes with an FPSR, the runner is never forced to slide; if he chooses to do so, he must do so legally, per the FED definition of a "legal slide". Though I do not presume to speak for others, I believe that LDUB and NIump would agree - I believe they each said so in earlier posts on this thread.

So, to the remaining point of contention. I believe you misconstrue what I, and others, are saying in suggesting that the original sitch posed in this thread is most likely a violation of the FPSR.

Under the FPSR, the runner is liable if he comes into his forced to base standing up. This is NOT the same thing as saying he must slide. Because he has another option which relieves him of liability. If he chooses not to slide, he has the option of "running away from the fielder" to avoid altering the play. If he does so, he is not liable under the FPSR.

The way the rule is written, it does NOT give the pivot man license to "go headhunting" on a forced runner who complies with the rule. If the runner chooses to run away from the fielder and the fielder goes out of his way to hit him with the throw, there is no FPSR violation, and the fielder is subject to ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The way I think of it, the FPSR severely constrains the R1's legal efforts to "break up a double play" at the forced to base. That is, the option of continuing directly toward the base in an upright standing (running?) position has been taken away. He still has the LEGAL option of sliding directly to the base. If he does so and happens to "take out" the pivot man who is either on or "in front of" (i.e. to the 1B side of) 2B, he is perfectly legal. If he chooses not to slide, he bears the burden of "not altering the play", preferably by running in a direction away from the fielder.

As some have emphasized, there is still certainly judgement involved as to whether the rule has been violated. But the judgement is NOT guided by the criteria that would be used in an OBR-based game. The judgement is guided by the criteria I described in the paragraph above.

That's what the rule says, that's what the case plays and Official Rulings say, and that is what the Authoritative Opinions say. There is no credible cite that says anything different.

The rule certainly tips the balance of the game in favor of the defense in these situations as compared to the OBR rules. The FED rulesmakers seem to believe this makes the game safer for the players.

Personally, I'm not sure that it does and I kind of dislike the way it alters the balance of the game. But, it's their rules. If you agree to officiate a game played under a ruleset with an FPSR, you should make the call according to the criteria defined by the rule. If you don't, you give an unfair advantage to the team that chooses not to follow the rule.

To me, the only really ambiguous thing about the rule is how close to the base the forced runner must be for it to come into effect. I'm pretty sure it's "less than halfway", but I have no idea how much less.

JM

Huh??? Because it is a thrown ball situation, said runner cannot be out for interference unless said interference was intentional.

It took 8 pages of gobbledygook to get there, though.

All this gibberish about NFHS rules--and many of my peers wonder why I detest high school ball.

I dislike HS ball so much that I stopped working it after 20 seasons of it, and with no possibility of higher level baseball, am happily working youth baseball exclusively for the first time ever. Other than getting the absolute crap knocked out of me every single game, it's just great!! LOL

UMP25,

What subjects do you teach?

I ask because, if the quality of your two posts on this thread are representative of the quality of your teaching, I shudder to think of the damage you are doing to the children you are charged with teaching.

I find the combination of ignorance and arrogance (to say nothing of your reading comprehension, lah me) evident in your posts on this this thread to be, in a word, appalling.

Thank you for your insightful contributions to this discussion. Now, run along.

JM

That is correct.

On a force play the runner has two options: Slide legally, or attempt to avoid the play. Notice how he is not required to slide, he has two options to choose from. If the runner does not slide then he must attempt to avoid the play. If the runner does not slide and makes contact with the fielder or alters the play it is interference.

R1 is attempting to avoid the play, there is no interference. Remember, there is no penalty for not sliding. There is a penalty for not sliding, not attempting to avoid the play and altering the play.

You and David seem to think alike. Last time I checked, the rules regarding interference and the penalty for the interference were different on force plays. Here is what I said to David:

I figured it out what you are doing. You are completly ignoring the FPSR. You are trying to call simple interference with a thrown ball. That does require intent, but the FPSR is different. The FPSR does not require intent. It is interference if the runner does not slide and either makes contact with the fielder or alters the play. There is no saying the runner didn't mean to interfere. Either the runner interfered or he didn't.

You are aware that the FPSR is exactly the same in the NCAA rulebook as the NF rulebook, right?

This Is A Judgment Call!!!!!
 

No matter how many ways we say this, this is a judgment call plain and simple. If you want to call an runner out just for running in their running path, then go right ahead and call that. I feel the defense should do something to make a better play. Now that is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Peace

JRutledge,

In each of my posts on this thread, I have acknowledged that there is a significant element of judgement in ruling on this (or similar) situations.

You seem to suggest (if I'm reading your posts correctly) that if the runner were to proceed directly to his base without sliding, and altered the pivot man's play - let's say by being hit by his throw to 1B - you would NOT call a violation of the FPSR. For the purpose of illustrating the point, let's assume that the forced runner was within a "body's length" of his forced to base at the time the pivot man released the throw. The pivot man was making a legitimate effort to retire the BR at 1B. The game is being played under FED (or NCAA, for that matter) rules.

If you do NOT call the R1 and the BR out, I believe you are completely ignoring the FPSR and inappropriately applying OBR criteria in ruling on the play. Why do you think differently?

JM

Coach,

What you say sounds great and wonderful, but I have never seen a runner get hit in this situation. I do not know too many players at the HS or college level that just do everything to get hit. So you can claim I am ignoring something, but until it happens, you have nothing. I am also not going to go out of my way with this call in a two man system which I mostly work and will not have a very good angle on how far a runner evaded the throw or not. Also you out of all I have read, I have not seen one case play, interpretation or NF or NCAA rational for making this an FPSR ruling. All I have heard is "What I think" and "What you think" which comes right back to what I said at the very beginning and right now, "THIS IS A JUDGMENT CALL." This is why we get paid the big bucks. The FPSR is always a judgment call. We can debate and debate and debate when it takes place, but it still is a judgment call. This thread is not going to change any of that.

Peace

I am aghast at the very idea that IHSA umpires don't recognze what is taught at the clinics, emphasized at the annual meetings and drilled into every playoff umpire's skull each year...in Fed ball, the runner is obligated to slide in a safe and legal manner. He cannot cause the defense to alter their actions - with or without contact. This is a very easy judgement call and my favorite comments is "Junior, breakup that double play." If I hear that, it better be coming from the stands during a Fed or NCAA game. If some washed up player/coach utters those words, I know I'm in for a long game. Now you know why I work so little Fed ball.

My second favorite coachspeak is "But, they are taught to do it that way." ;)

How odd that you "work so little Fed ball" and yet you seem to speak with authority that an entire state is getting the FPSR so badly wrong and teaching its umpires that "the [forced?] runner is obligated to slide in a safe and legal manner."

As several posters have correctly pointed out, in FED, the runner is never required by rule to slide. I doubt that any state blows it as badly as you say, even one with you in it.

Course in logic
 

You can take things out of context and make it say anything you want. If you will read everything that I have written in this thread, it is very consistent and per rule.

The runner does not have to slide. The runner has a right to run to the base - standing up if he wants.

If he interferes with the play by F4 or F6 call interference, if he doesn't interfere, we have nothing.

This is not very hard at all. There's the old saying about mountains ...

But, there is nothing in a rule or interpretation about calling someone out simply because they go into the base standing up.

That's what I have been saying in everything I have written/typed in this thread. If you want to call interference on a play simply because the runner was doing what he was supposed to do, then go ahead. (Edited to add "unless the fielder interferes or alters the play")

Make the call and eject the coach. But, by rule and interpretation that is not what FED has at this point.

Thanks
David

Bottom line is ...
 

Words can be so hard sometimes, but intent is not that hard.

In determining intent, you have to look at the runners actions. A hard legal slide is fine. A runner runs through the bag, fine as long as the play is not altered.

Anything illegal is FPSR, unless the play is completed and then we ignore it.
Most of the time in games that I call this is the norm - if you call lower level games you probably see this more.

Again, in determining intent you have to recognize the level of play, the players involved, the game situation (many times this dictates the call) and etc.,

I will get my notebook out today and find the play that I referenced above about intent and contact.

Calling NCAA and FED this season, i have had to call FPSR none.

Thansk
David

I am, indeed, aware of this fact (save for a few punctuation or verbage differences :D).

My post above was directly responding to another individual's statement that overly generalized runner interference due to a runner being "not where he was supposed to be." With respect to interference on a thrown ball per se, that's irrelevant unless said runner does something intentional, CoachJM's ridiculous post notwithstanding.

Coach
 

Thanks for the useful counterpoint. And I am not being facetious.

Having said that, I still disagree and will not call this sitch, as described to me, interference.

First of all, there is nowhere in the official rules (any code) or casebooks that talks about a 45-foot invisible line of demarcation- past 45, slide or get out of the way; before 45, you can do anything short of intentionally interfering and you're ok. It simply doesn't exist. Which, by the way, leads me back to my earlier post about R1 getting hit in the back of the head with the throw while retreating to first. What makes 45 feet better than 46? Better than 55? Better than 89? I respectfully suggest that it's nothing, and that my (the umpire's) judgment must be the controlling factor in determining whether to call interference.

Even in Rumble's Rulings, which may be somewhat authoritative- but still unofficial- he doesn't directly say anything about a 45-foot line. In the absence of a 45-foot line (or any line for that matter), we are just guessing about where the runner will "interfere". I would like someone to point me to a rule or an official interpretation- under ANY code- that refers to some set distance from second base being automatically determinative of interference. Again I say that if the code drafters wanted to put that determination in there, they could do exactly that. All of us who umpire high school baseball are well aware of the NFHS Rules Committee's willingness- I daresay enthusiasm - to add to or edit the rules in sometimes absurd ways. If the FED wanted it in there, they would certainly write it that way. I beleive that if the 45-foot line becomes the rule, it will last for a season before players, coaches, fans and umpires tire of seeing runners slide 44 feet from second base to avoid the less-than-common occurance in HS baseball of a double play. Some teams still play occasionally on astroturf with the cutouts around the bases. Are we telling kids to slide on the turf? Imagine the strawberrys and more serious injuries we will be encouraging if we do that. And "getting out of the way" 45 feet from second leaves me with just as many questions. Suppose F6 is not throwing in a direct line from second to first, but instead pushes a step or two toward the pitcher's mound or the outfield. Hapless R1, who guessed wrong and peeled off toward the outfield and gets plunked, well dude, you just interfered. Sorry. Gotta go ring up your BR too.

What about a bunt, where the entire point is to advance the runner to second? With a 45 foot rule (or any artificial distance) added to the FPSR, we are now going to tell every defense to throw to second on a sacrifice bunt, every time. The odds are pretty good that the defense will frustrate the bunt- not because of skill, athleticism or smarts- but because of an extreme interpretation of a rule. R1 HAS TO slide (despite the rule to the contrary) if the defense elects to go to second, and hey- maybe they were trying to turn two, so maybe I'll get two if R1 doesn't slide or get out of the way . . .

Finally and most important to me (next to the safety issue of encouraging kids to plunk runners instead of properly completing the play), interpreting the rule in this way will represent an ENORMOUS and unfair shift of advantage to the defense. How many times, my fellow blues, have you had a botched transfer at second base while the defense is trying to turn two? Here's a familiar play. 0 out, R1. BR hits sharply to F6. R1 is advancing in a hurry to second. F6 flips to F4, who fumbles the ball, fumbles again, and by the time he finally gets secure possession of it, R1 is safe at second. Now interpret the FPSR to mean that 45 feet and closer to the bag, R1 must slide or peel off. The defense, who couldn't possibly get even one if I hadn't told R1 to slide or get out of the way 45 feet from second, is now rewarded for its silly/stupid/sloppy play.

BlueLawyer, J., dissenting.

Strikes and outs!

Now you go it. That's what I've been saying all along. The runner can either slide or not slide. If he does not slide he cannot make contact with the fielder or alter the play.

Uh thanks
 

I think I had it all along, sometimes we just don't write or type exactly what we're trying to say.

Also, just FYIW, Blue Lawyer above has a good post about this whole senario which is right on the point.

If we need a line at 45ft. then we're calling t-ball and not baseball.

Thanks
David

FPSR because runner does alter the play.
 

"IF RUNNER IS BETWEEN BASES, STANDING UP, AND IS HIT BY THE THROW IT IS A VIOLATION AS HE ALTERED THE PLAY"

http://www.blinn.edu/Brazos/kine/HKN...de%20rulen.htm

"In addition, it is a no call when the runner does not slide in a force situation and does not contact the fielder or alters the play. The force-play slide rule isn’t enforced as long as the fielder has cleared the area. In other words, as long as the defensive player has moved away from the base before the runner arrives and he doesn’t slide and doesn’t have any effect on the play, there is no violation."

http://www.umpire.org/writers/force.html

"A.R. - 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."

NCAA 8-4, pages 86-87, http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

And getting hit by a bad throw from a fielder is not the runner altering the play, it is the fielder who has thrown the ball into the runner, who is in his baseline.

Okay SAUmp,

The first quote in all caps is a sentence somebody made up and has no basis in truth or a real rule cite.

The second and third quotations deal with play at the base, not what happens after the fielder throws the ball trying to complete a play which is separate from the force play. I agree wholeheartedly that if the runner illegally slides and contacts the fielder or alters his play, i.e. his attempt to throw the ball, then by all means call interference.

Rumble's Rambling is not in the rule book or case book, so it is not an official rule, so I would not use it as a reference in any FED game I was calling.

And that is the problem I have in the ORIGINAL SITCH. Second baseman hit runner in mid-thigh from 6 feet away. The original posted even said that there was no way the ball was getting to first base. Throwing it there from that close seems to me that that is exactly where the second baseman wanted to throw it so I don’t see how the runner altered the throw. I am not a mind reader so I am not going to try to guess that the 2nd baseman was afraid to hit the runner in the face so he threw it at his legs. All I can go by is what I see and I see a second baseman making no attempt to throw the ball to first but attempting to hit the runner in the thigh, which he did, no interference. Now, if the kid is afraid to hit the runner, fine, throw it over his head, throw it over his shoulder , hit him in the shoulder, do something so it at least looks like you are trying to get the out at first.

By your own definition, the second baseman could have taken the throw, spiked the ball into the runner’s foot and it would be interference on the runner. I don't think that call would go over.

Rules Quotes
 

SA:

Thanks for the references to the rules.

I would reiterate, again, that nowhere in any of the quoted rules or interpretations is a distance from second mentioned as a magic line for determining interference.

And there does appear to be some discrepancy between the NCAA and FED rules, at least as far as interpretation. There is no nifty gray horseshoe around second for the fielder in the FED book. Also, the FED book defines a legal slide, in part, as taking place so that a hand or a foot is within reach of the base. No such definition in the NCAA book. So, no sliding 44 feet from the bag in a high school game unless your name is Jolly. As in Green Giant.

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.

So now we are left with peeling off. If I think (and I do) that the FPSR is in the book to protect the defensive player(s), how does getting a double play on the kid who is still running, quite legally, between bases, advance that worthy goal? How does doubling up the BR whose teammate just got plunked in the thigh 6 feet from the bag advance that goal? I submit that it doesn't.

RTGDR. Which, loosely translated, means "Read the gosh dang rule." Its close corallary is "DRAITGDRTIP"- "Don't read anymore into the gosh dang rule than is printed."

Strikes and outs!

Reply to JRutledge - Part I
 

JRutledge,

I don't recall ever seeing a runner hit by a throw ball in similar situations in any of the games I have ever coached either. I have seen a couple come "close". On the other hand, I have seen a forced runner break his ankle sliding into 2B when there was absolutely no reason for him to slide - as recently as last season. Hey, baseball is a dangerous game sometimes. If you don't like that fact, don't play it.

In case I wasn't clear, I am not a big fan of the FPSR rule either as a safety rule or as a playing rule. Based on the research I have read, the incidence of a player getting injured while sliding is significantly higher than the incidence of a player getting injured due to a collision with an opposing player or being hit by a ball thrown by the pivot man on a force play. (The highest incidence of injuries result from players being hit by pitched and batted balls.)

My interest in the subject as a coach is in the proper way to teach my players to handle these situations. (I primarily coach boys who will be entering H.S. in the fall.) This is what I try to teach them.

I try to teach my middle infielders to "clear the base" (and the running lane) as they take the throw at the forced to base and continue the pivot in throwing to 1B.

I try to teach my forced runners to slide to the base if the play is going to be anywhere near close, and to run out of the way if they are "dead meat".

Some of the coaches who are my opponents teach their players differently. They teach their players to do (almost) "whatever they can" to "take out" the pivot man, as long as they stay "within reach" of their forced to base. These include techniques such as sliding to either side of the base (still within reach) in order to slide into the pivot man's legs, "pop-up" slides where they slide to the base and immediately stand up into the space being used by the pivot man to catch and throw, and coming directly into the base standing up in order to make the pivot man's play more difficult. (I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that any of them are teaching their fielders to deliberately throw AT the runner, or teaching their runners to deliberately run into the throwing lane of a pivot man who has "cleared the runnning lane".)

Now, I believe that ALL of the techniques I describe above are ILLEGAL in rule codes that contain the FPSR, while the ones descibed outside of parentheses are perfectly legal in an OBR-based game.

As we have both seen from the posts on this thread, there is a wide variety of opinion among umpires as to what is and is not legal under the FPSR. You suggest that the discussion has all been "What I think" vs. "What you think". I see it quite differently, so let me recap:

In post #13 on this thread, BigUmp56 provides the first reference to an actual rule: 8-4-2b; Immediately following in post #14, SanDiegoSteve, cites the 8-4-2, Exception. Since they both cited the rule without quoting it, let me provide the text from the BRD (#320 for those following along at home - mine is the 2005 edition).

Next, in post #20, bob jenkins references Situation #19 from the 2006 interpretations posted on the FED website. This is what it says:

To me, and at least some others, this FED ruling clearly says that a forced runner does not come under the constraints of the FPSR until he is at least halfway to his forced to base. Others seem to suggest that it means the FPSR does nto apply to the pivot man's throw on the play or the runner being hit by that throw. Personally, I find such a reading insupportable. But I would certainly grant that the ruling is not "crystal clear", and leaves ambiguity regarding how close the forced runner must be to the base before he IS constrained by the FPSR. Certainly, in my mind, a criterion left to the umpire's judgement in the proper application of the rule.

The reason I find the second reading suggested above "insupportable" is the FED Official Interpretation actually quoted by LDUB in post #24 of this thread:

Now some have dismissed this Offical Interpretation with ad hominem attacks on Brad Rumble and pointing out that this interpretation has never made its way into the Fed Rule or Case book. No one has offered anything that meaningfully or credibly challenges the ruling itself. This is what Carl Childress says about it in the BRD:

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:

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.

Now in post #62 of this thread, SanDiegoSteve has already quoted the BRD passage immediately above. His comments on its meaning suggest to me that he skipped the part that says, "...If the runner is "close" and has time to avoid the throw (get down or run away), then it's interference." Perhaps Carl will deign to comment on which reading reflects his intent.

In post #40, I quoted the NCAA FPSR, repeated here for your convenience:

Finally, we have the NAIA rule posted in post #67 by SAump, as earlier posted by briancurtin.

There also follows some instructions to umpires on who should be watching for what in a 2-man crew.

(continued in Part II - my apologies for not being more concise)

Reply to JRutledge - Part II
 

(continued from Part I)

So, while there has certainly been a lot of "you think/I think" commentary, the actual rules, interpretations, and (to my mind) authoritative opinions have also been posted. They ALL support the notion that a forced runner who is "close to" his force base MUST either slide legally or run away from from the fielder. If he fails to do either of these things AND "alters the play", he is, by rule, declared out and so is the BR.

Now you continue to suggest that this is a judgement call - I certainly agree. But it seems to me that we have a difference of opinion on what the umpire is properly judging in these situations.

When you say things like:

or

it leads me to believe that you are ignoring both the text and spirit of the rule in making your ruling on the play - because you don't particularly like the rule. I don't particularly like the rule either.

I certainly agree that there are significant elements of judgement involved in making the correct call in these situations. The rule is completely ambiguous as to how close is "close enough" for the rule to be in effect. The 2006 FED ruling is a step in the right direction, but there is clearly a lot of remaining ambiguity. There are also significant elements of judgement regarding the runner's actions as to whether his slide (should he choose to slide) is "direct enough" to the base and whether it was legal in all respects. If he chooses not to slide, the umpire must judge whether he "ran away" to a sufficient degree to be excused from liability for an FPSR violation. The umpire must judge whether the fielder was making a legitimate attempt to complete the DP or whether he intentionally went out of his way to hit the runner with the throw or initiate contact with the runner. Finally, the umpire must judge whether there was contact and/or an "alteration of the play". I think we agree that there's a whole lot of umpire judgement involved.

However, if the runner chooses NOT to slide, and he chooses NOT to run away, and he is hit by the throw while in "close proximity" to the base, he HAS violated the rule. Your judgement that the fielder should have been able to find a way to throw around the runner who chooses to come into the base standing up is completely irrelevant to the proper call in a game played with an FPSR rule. While it would be essentially relevant in a game played without an FPSR rule.

Suggesting that being hit by the throw is NOT altering the play or that the FPSR allows the runner to come into the base standing up and alter the play is insupportable. If you rule this way, you have misapplied the rules. If you have any credible cite that says otherwise, I'm all ears.

Personally, I wish they'd just get rid of the FPSR. Until they do, I would ask that the umpires properly enforce it - as the rules require, whether you like the rule or not.

JM

Two quick points:

1) How close is "close" when a runner is approaching the base? At what point should he run away from the baseline? 10ft.? 12ft? 44ft? It has to be ruled on a case by case, HTBT basis.

2) The FPSR was implemented to protect the fielder from injury, not to give him an automatic DP to reward his errant throw.

I wish the FED would do away with quite a few of its rules, BTW.

It's fairly simple.
If he's close enough to slide he slides. If not, when he sees the fielder make the out and begin his throw he veers off. If umpire sees R1 veer off and clearly not in line with first and throw hits him anyway, use your judgement. No one has said it is an automatic DP anytime runner is hit, DP only if runner fails to clear.

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

Coach - put down the heavy object! We've all been there with him and at some point you just have to remember that your lot in life is far superior to his. That is all the consolation we get sometimes - partners like him cause coaches, players and good umpires a lot of grief. You've been around long enough to know better.

He did have it correct with one respect - Fed and NCAA have spoken and we both know what the proper call should be.

OBR makes it sooo much easier.


7.09(f) It is interference by a batter or a runner when any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Professional Interpretation: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play. Traditionally, runners are allowed to contact or collide with the defensive player at second just as they are on plays at home plate. However, different guidelines exist: (1) The runner may divert his path in order to crash the pivot man but he must be able to reach the base with some part of his body; (2) The roll block is illegal. The runner must not leave the ground and contact the fielder. If; however, he hits the ground first, he is allowed to crash into the pivot man provided he does so at the base; and (3) The runner may slide through and beyond the base toward left field and be unable to reach the base provided that he does not do so in order to contact the fielder who has retreated to this position off the base to complete the play. In that event, the previous guideline is in effect and the runner must be able to reach the base with some part of his body. The American League regulations offer the following guidelines: A runner, who in the opinion of the umpire contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on a base, may be called out for interference and when appropriate a double play may be called. Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference. If a runner hits the dirt, slides and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless he leaves the ground and makes contact with the fielder before he slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a rolling block. The above are merely guidelines for the umpires in making their judgment calls.



Tim.

"Professional Interpretation: The runner should be declared out if he deviates from a direct line to the base and subsequently interferes with the fielder making or completing any play."

See how simple that is, now if the FED would only........nah, forget it. That ship already sailed.

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.

JM

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.

Basic Principles
 

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!

Good post.

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

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.

Not a factor
 

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!

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....

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.

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.

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):

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:

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 :D

I stand corrected
 

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!

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

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

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

I'm not going that far
 

I'm not doing that, and will do my best to avoid it. What I am saying is that "chance that the defense will make the play" is not a factor, and yeah, smart defenses might plunk runners when they have no reasonable chacne to turn two. The potential benefits outweight the risks, in my mind.

Strikes and outs!

If F4 plunks R1 after R1 has veered to avoid altering the play, he has a lot to lose, like participating in the rest of this game and the next.