runner struck by thrown ball

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by David B

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")

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

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

[SAump]

"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

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

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.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

"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

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.

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by SAump
"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, [url

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_baseball_rules.pdf[/url]

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.

[BlueLawyer]

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!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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).

FED: On a force play a runner must slide legally "in a direct line between bases." (8-4-2b). The runner may slide (or run) away from the fielder to avoid altering the play. (2-32-2f Ex; 8-4-2b Ex; 2.32.2a) ...

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

SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)

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:

On a force play a runner hit by a throw between the bases is guilty of interference if he did not slide or run well away from the fielder making the throw.

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:

Note 342-320: The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves an important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference?

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:

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.

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:

...
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. ...

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

7.09 A. A runner must slide or move in a direction away from the play in a force play situation at all bases, including home plate.

If the fielder, in his attempt, is moving DIRECTLY down the line between the two bases and proper contact is made, interference shall not be called.

Contact is allowable if the runner is on the ground at the time. The runner may not use a rolling, cross-body block or pop-up slide, go over or beyond the base or slash or kick the fielder with either leg; the raised leg must be no higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position. "On the ground" can be either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and buttock on the ground.

NOTE: A base runner need not slide directly into a base as long as he slides in a direction AWAY from the infielder attempting to make a play.

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)

[UmpJM]

(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:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...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.

or

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...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. ...

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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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

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

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

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.

[BigUmp56]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

"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.