runner struck by thrown ball

[David B]

Originally Posted by PWL

For the people that know how to umpire you can disregard this post. Why even in the world are the words FORCE PLAY SLIDE RULE in the interpretation? Who starts their slide more than halfway to the next base. The runner has every right to advance. He cannot assume anything. There might be a dropped throw or foot off the bag. If he gets hit by ACCIDENT, charge the fielder with an error if anything. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Don't bail the defense out for a throwing error.

As I've been saying all along, don't reward the defense if they can't make the play.

I might have missed it but I can't find it in the rules/interpretations to call out the runner if he doesn't interfere with the play with intent.

The bottom line for interference in FED is intent. F6 and F4 should be coached to make the play properly and this play will NEVER happen.

If a player is hit with no intent I can't find it to penalize him.

All this talk about safety is good, but it has to coincide with the rules.

FPSR was put in the book to protect the F6 or F4, not the runner.

Thanks
David

[DG]

Originally Posted by PWL

For the people that know how to umpire you can disregard this post. Why even in the world are the words FORCE PLAY SLIDE RULE in the interpretation? Who starts their slide more than halfway to the next base. The runner has every right to advance. He cannot assume anything. There might be a dropped throw or foot off the bag. If he gets hit by ACCIDENT, charge the fielder with an error if anything. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Don't bail the defense out for a throwing error.

No one slides halfway to the base, but everyone can move out of the way if they see they have been forced out. A dropped throw would not be one that would hit the runner. A foot off the bag would be easy enough to see also, and they can continue, after a step sideways to the bag. It seems clear that FED wants this called if the runner is within 45 feet of the bag. You may not like it, or agree with it, but that is too bad.

[DG]

Originally Posted by David B

As I've been saying all along, don't reward the defense if they can't make the play.

I might have missed it but I can't find it in the rules/interpretations to call out the runner if he doesn't interfere with the play with intent.

The bottom line for interference in FED is intent. F6 and F4 should be coached to make the play properly and this play will NEVER happen.

If a player is hit with no intent I can't find it to penalize him.

All this talk about safety is good, but it has to coincide with the rules.

FPSR was put in the book to protect the F6 or F4, not the runner.

Thanks
David

Read Rumbles ruling and Situation 19 from 2006 interprations and stop agreeing with PWL. You will be better for it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

This suggests that being less than half-way when struck is not interference so one could surmise that being more than half-way is.

That is quite a giant leap in logic. I could build a diagram based on any or all of the following logical fallacies:

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options.

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Just because an example was given in which a ficticous runner was not guilty of interference because he was less than halfway to second, does not necessarily mean that if he is past halfway, he is guilty of interference.
______________________________________________

Originally Posted by DG

PU should be watching the runner, not 2B, to see if there is a FPSR violation. BU has the play at 2B, and then the play at 1B.

The BU only relinqueshes his call at 2nd base when the throw turns him to 1st base. In this case, the throw hit the runner, so it is still the BU's call all the way.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

Read Rumbles ruling and Situation 19 from 2006 interprations and stop agreeing with PWL. You will be better for it.

There are quite a number of people who disagree with you besides PWL. We have all had the opportunity now to read Rumble's "ruling" which has yet to be incorporated in plain English in either the Rule Book or the Case Book. Perhaps you should review the entire thread and count the number of folks who remain undecided, or think that it could possibly not be interference.

Situation 19 is an example, and not a cut and dried, "one size fits all" rule to end all rules. It only addresses a runner who is less than halfway to 2nd base. It does not address a runner who is 10 feet from the base who may or may not be in the act of beginning to slide when hit by a throw which is less than 3 feet off the ground, hit the runner in the thigh, and more than likely would not have made it to 1st base anyway.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by David B

As I've been saying all along, don't reward the defense if they can't make the play.

So if F6 steps to the side of the base and gets taken out by a sliding R1 you don't call interference because you don't want to reward the defense if they can't make the play. Sure R1's actions were illegal, but F6 could have jumped higher or steped farther to the side to avoid R1.

The play being discussed in this thread is no different. In both cases R1 did something illegal which is interference if he makes contact with the fielder or alters the play (if you don't want to use an old McNeely quote, then R1's illegal side is interference whether or not he actually makes contact or alters the play). In both plays the fielder could have done something different to get off a good throw. In the play above F6 could have jumped higher and avoided the contact from the sliding R1. Sure in the play in question the fielder could side step to give himself a clear throwing lane to first base. But jumping extra high may cause the fielder to get off a bad throw. Stepping to the side costs time which could result in the BR being safe at first base. Arent both of those examples of runners altering the play?

The FPSR puts the responsibility on the runner to make sure the fielder is able to have a "fair" shot at turning the double play. You are switching it up and putting the responsibility on the fielder by saying the fielder could have done something to avoid the runner. That is backwards. The runner avoids the fielder. The fielder should not have to avoid the runner.

Originally Posted by David B

I might have missed it but I can't find it in the rules/interpretations to call out the runner if he doesn't interfere with the play with intent.

The bottom line for interference in FED is intent. F6 and F4 should be coached to make the play properly and this play will NEVER happen.

If a player is hit with no intent I can't find it to penalize him.

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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

In addition,

The hard grounder places the onus on offense to legally break up the double play. Almost everyone here agrees that the older the fielder, the more likely he is to take the > 80 mph shot straight to first base. This would suggest some type of veering was done at the last second by a smart baserunner. It would also confirm that even a slow baserunner has the time to properly get out of the way of the throw. Whereas, the fielder cannot delay if he is to increase his chances for a double play.

Above NCAA, there is NO force play slide rule. However the evidence indicates that even the big boys SLIDE into second base on a force play with less than two outs. The one percent that do not slide are also NOT HIT by the thrown ball feet from second base. In summary the OBR may not address a FPSR situation because the actions on the field already require a SLIDE or get the hell out of the way approach. At the lower levels, one must be reminded by rule not to attempt the obvious INTERFERENCE by running straight UP into second base on a routine double play situation.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by David B

I might have missed it but I can't find it in the rules/interpretations to call out the runner if he doesn't interfere with the play with intent.

The bottom line for interference in FED is intent. FPSR was put in the book to protect the F6 or F4, not the runner.

Thanks
David

8-4-1h says

any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious DP

2-21-1 says
Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:
a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

1. Nothing in the rule infers intent.
2. If F4 has to change his throwing motion to avoid R1 then it's not a stretch to say he was impeded, hindered or obstructed. I think they use all these words to get the point accross.

NFHS under points of emphasis

FORCE PLAY SLIDE RULE vs RUNNER INTERFERENCE: Simply stated, the runner never has to slide. However, on a force play when he does slide, it must be legal and in direct line between the two bases. A runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. .... (my bold)

All of these rules are very consistent
R1 can't make F4 alter or change his throwing motion by coming into the base standing up.

What part of this is so difficult to understand?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by PWL

The runner can come into the base standing up. He just cannot make any contact at all with the fielder. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

It is also interference if the runner alters the play, not just makes contact.

[LMan]

But the case rulings also say that:

1) there is no INT if the fielder has already released the ball to 1B (ie, the play at 2B is essentially complete), and;

2) there is no INT if the fielder is contacted *in front of the bag* (ie, on the baseline b/w 1B and 2B) and the runner makes a legal slide IAW FPSR.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by LMan

But the case rulings also say that:

1) there is no INT if the fielder has already released the ball to 1B (ie, the play at 2B is essentially complete)

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

[BlueLawyer]

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!

[DG]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

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.

[UmpJM]

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The runner was not where he was supposed to be. The runner has two options: Slide or get out of the way. He did neither and altered the play by being hit with a thrown ball. That is interference. This play is very easy to call without even seeing it.

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