I love those who tell me what I do by jumping to conclusions.

As I said quite clearly, i make this call on a case by case basis. Nothing is automatic on this call...for me. Feel free to utilize a "one size fits all" philosophy on this. I choose not to.

And, yes, I realize I am in the minority on this. Never the less, I will continue to use judgement on this play.

Sorry, I was thinking of Deary by mistake. My bad.:o

Nowhere in rule 8-4-2 does it say that the runner:

a) must slide

or

b) must get out of the way

Where do I expect the fielder to throw the ball? How about coming across the base to take the throw on the inside of the diamond or touching the base and backing away from the base on the outside of the diamond? These are the mechanics which are taught to second basemen.

My opinion -- the FPSR is primarily a safety rule -- protect the middle infielder, not only when there is contact, but when there might be contact. Calling the runer out for being hit by the throw does not protect the middle infielder (that is, there's nothing to protect him from). So, don't call the second out.

If you want to call this interference, go right ahead. I know I personally do not care what you do. I know I am with Garth and many others here. I am not calling interference based on how far they have come to second. The fielder better figure out a way to throw the ball to first then what was described.

Peace

I must say, when you're right, you're right! I agree completely. Only in much smaller letters.:)

I knew we had discussed a similar play recently. Bob J mentions an older case play and a new POE in this thread. It seems we're still not all in agreement.



http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...t=26142&page=2



Tim.

Yes, as is evidence by that thread, I have flip-flopped worse than John Kerry.:eek:

I guess I have been pursuaded towards not calling interference, since I cannot find any language that says the runner must "veer off" to avoid being hit by the ball. I would love to see a really definitive answer on this ruling before I make any final opinions on it.:confused:

I am sitting here thinking (I know, that's dangerous) and I think that in the other thread, the runner could clearly see that he was out, while in this case, the runner was busting his butt trying to get to the base on what was a much closer play. Without having seen either play, I would tend to favor the runner who was close to 2nd base when he was hit over the guy who had to have known he was out by 45 feet or so. I feel that judgment should prevail on a case by case basis.

I hadn't read this thread until now, because the title didn't interest me. When I saw how many replies it had generated, I had to look.

Now I have always said (and I believe this was the point GarthB was making) that it is impossible to comment definitively regarding an interference (or obstruction) call without having been there.

Having said that, I can't believe the discussion that has taken place to this point.

Now, there is one material fact that hbenson has omitted from his description of the sitch: what rule code was in effect.

If the game is being played under OBR, this is most likely properly "ruled" E4, live ball, play the bounce.

If the game is being played under FED or NCAA this is almost without a doubt a violation of the Force Play Slide Rule (as, I believe, LDUB was th first to point out), ball is dead, BR is out. If not, the FPSR has no meaning and doesn't really exist.

In the sitch posed by hbenson, the runner is six to ten feet from 2B at the time the pivot man catches the throw from the shortstop. This means he is a lot closer to 2B at the time he is hit by the throw - even the slowest runner will be within a body length of 2B.

This is what the NCAA FPSR says:

"...
a. 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.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. ..."

So, in the original sitch, we have:

1. A force play

2. A forced runner, in near proximity to his "forced to" base who does not slide

3. An alteration of the play being attempted by the pivot man caused by the forced runner.

Sure sounds like an FPSR violation to me (if you're playing under FED or NCAA).

It might not be. hbenson didn't tell us whether the runner ran "...in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder...".

If he did, then you've got a whole lot of umpire judgement as to whether or not his effort was sufficient to avoid an FPSR violation. If I understand him correctly, I believe this was Garth's point.

Under OBR, on the other hand, there is no FPSR and the runner is explicitly excused from liability for interference if he is simply "continuing his advance", even if he has just been put out. So, unless he did something like stick out his leg to intentionally interfere, it's live ball, play on. If the umpire judges that he did intentionally interfere (other than by continuing his advance), the ball is dead and the BR is out if the umpire also judges that the defense would have put him out absent the interference.

JM

the runner is expected to "slide or avoid" to miss the contact, not a bad throw. The onus is definitely on the defense here. The only way that runner can interfere is intentionally.

I take exception to the 3 foot rule interpretation you have there...

The three foot rule has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this play...that is when a runner is attempting to avoid a tag...

In this play...remember the rule of thumb that I was taught a long time ago by a MLB umpire...

"By interpretation, there is only one place the runner can be called out for interference for 'unintentionally' interfering with a thrown ball, and that would be runners lane between home and first on a ball being fielded directly to first base. Intent is assumed by him being out of the lane that they gave him to run in to avoid such a play. Getting struck by a thrown ball (unless forced to avoid or slide by FED rules, etc...) simply by running does not constitute interference...intent must be there."

Yes, I remember that! Reggie should have been called out for interference, but I guess the umpires were too much in awe of his stature or something. I couldn't believe what I saw, as he actually intentionally stuck his butt out to interfere.:cool:

Check out F. "As a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base." The runner has to either slide or get out of the way. Running in a direct line between the bases is not getting out of the way.

Key language: "or the play on a force play" What does "play on a force play" mean? A fair reading could be the act of the fielder with the ball touching the bag on a force play. It certainly does not say "the runner must, at all costs, avoid the relay throw coming from second base. If the runner fails to do so, the batter runner shall be declared out." The wizards at NFHS, NCAA and the OBR committee could all put this in there; they didn't.

I still ain't calling this interference, even with a FPSR. This could turn into Keystone Kops in a hurry. My main concern is that if I Godzilla this and get the second out, defenses will start throwing at runners who are close to second, especially when there is a potential whacker at first. What's easier, turning the 6-4-3 the way Tinker to Evers to Chance did it, or plunking happless R1 who is ten feet from second? The leagues I work aren't athletic enough to turn lots of double plays, but they are competitive enough to find a way to get one if I open the door for them.

Strikes and outs!