runner struck by thrown ball

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[UMP25]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

[UmpJM]

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

[LDUB]

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.

That is correct.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

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.

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.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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.

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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

[JRutledge]

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

[UmpJM]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

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."

[mbyron]

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.


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 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

[David B]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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?

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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

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

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.

[BlueLawyer]

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!