runner struck by thrown ball

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I am saying that the rule as written does not specifically address any "must slide" or "veer off" language. Perhaps if they added "must slide or veer off" to the rule, we wouldn't need to have a lengthy thread arguing about it.

Actually I quoted the rule earlier in this thread and it says that the runner must on a force play either slide legally or attempt to avoid the play (veer off). Yet you still feel the need to have a lengthy discussion about it. I even posted an NFHS interp in which a runner who went in standing up and was hit with a throw and called for interference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Actually I quoted the rule earlier in this thread and it says that the runner must on a force play either slide legally or attempt to avoid the play (veer off). Yet you still feel the need to have a lengthy discussion about it. I even posted an NFHS interp in which a runner who went in standing up and was hit with a throw and called for interference.

And once again, I maintain that this is referring to the play at second base, and avoiding the play at second base only, and does not refer to any following play after the force out. You cannot assume a double-play. The runner is required to either slide (to avoid contact with the fielder) or attempt to avoid the play at second base, not a subsequent throw.

If the rules makers want to include the relay throw to first in their interpretation, then they should spell it out clearly. Oh, I forgot, FED doesn't do clearly very well.

Once again, I'm not the only one that holds this opinion.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And once again, I maintain that this is referring to the play at second base, and avoiding the play at second base only, and does not refer to any following play after the force out. You cannot assume a double-play. The runner is required to either slide (to avoid contact with the fielder) or attempt to avoid the play at second base, not a subsequent throw.

If the rules makers want to include the relay throw to first in their interpretation, then they should spell it out clearly. Oh, I forgot, FED doesn't do clearly very well.

Once again, I'm not the only one that holds this opinion.

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

It's clear, Luke. But, does it (still) apply? Where did Brad make that quote?Does 2006 Situation 19 supercede whatever Brad said, or does it "change" it so that a runner who is less than 1/2 way to second is not guilty of interference while a runner who is more than 1/2 way is guilty?

(These types of questions apply to many of the Fed's attempts to clarify / change / supercede rulings.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I posted this earlier: "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." How is that not clear enough for you?

Well, I like what Carl Childress wrote about Rumble's interpretation:

"The Rumble ruling is consistent and illuminating, therefore helpful. But it is not definitive, for it leaves and important question unanswered: How close does the runner have to be to the "forced" base before the umpire rules interference? I repeat my recommendations from the last few editions: Let umpire judgment 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 Rumbles's ruling from 1998 has had six years to make its way into the casebook -- without success."

Now it is seven years, BTW, as this is from the 2005 BRD.

[SanDiegoSteve]

PWL,

That is why Carl said "let umpire judgment carry the day." We are supposed to be able to make that distinction.

[BlueLawyer]

Originally Posted by PWL

With wording like this, the fielder knowing he doesn't have a play at first, might as well take aim at the runner.

Dude- I've been saying this all along. See the above posts.

Ruling that any runner who doesn't get down 6 feet from 2nd, 10 feet from 2nd, halfway, etc., etc., is AUTOMATICALLY guilty of interference is very, very dangerous territory in my view. The defense has every incentive to plunk the guy every single time. The FPSR is not designed (a) to endanger the runner or (b) give the defense a cheap double play. Carl's right. You can refuse to reward the defense for bad play while STILL enforcing the FPSR and protecting the defense's right to try to turn a legitimate double play if you exercise judgment and common sense.

Strikes and outs!

[SAump]

Any runner within 6-10 feet of the bag has obviously chose NOT to slide. The baserunner who elects NOT to slide has basically given himself UP at the SAC in order to break up a possible double play. His only remaining object is to force or alter the direction of the throw to first base by standing straight UP in the pathway. Errant throw aside, is a leading baserunner on a possible double play ball allowed to run straight into a base without sliding?

Basemen who must contend with a runner who slides hard in an attempt to break up a double play are NOT protected past the back edge of the bag. Most pivot men are taught to release the ball at a height that would force the runner to slide early as a measure of safety or self-preservation. A second baseman may react differently to grown adult running straight UP at full speed in his direction. Perhaps this fear of hitting a grown man between the eyes is cause of errant throw from the pivot man into the baserunner's thigh. Are basemen protected from runners who refuse to slide?

If you don't call it interference, then you will begin to see more and more "heavy" baserunners do the same thing, that is refuse to slide and run in straight UP. If it wasn't interference, then we would definitely have more of these situation occur daily. I would call it intereference based on the fact that it doesn't occur in this regard as often as predicted. The nature of the act is simply INTERFERENCE.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by BlueLawyer

Dude- I've been saying this all along. See the above posts.

Ruling that any runner who doesn't get down 6 feet from 2nd, 10 feet from 2nd, halfway, etc., etc., is AUTOMATICALLY guilty of interference is very, very dangerous territory in my view. The defense has every incentive to plunk the guy every single time. The FPSR is not designed (a) to endanger the runner or (b) give the defense a cheap double play. Carl's right. You can refuse to reward the defense for bad play while STILL enforcing the FPSR and protecting the defense's right to try to turn a legitimate double play if you exercise judgment and common sense.

Strikes and outs!

It isn't dangerous territory close to the base. I don't know how you and SDS think that runners should not be sliding when they are 10 feet from the base. SDS even went so far as to say a runner who starts sliding 6 feet from the base will not reach the base. I understand that saying the runner must slide if he is X feet from the base is a tough thing to do, but we all know when the runner is close enough to the base to slide. If the runner is close enough to slide, but is not sliding or avoiding the play he is intentionally trying to obstruct the play in some way. Runners aren't stupid, they know they have to slide. They don't go in standing up for no reason.

Calling interference is not encouraging the fielder to throw at the runner in any way. How often do you see runners going in standing up anyways? When the occasional runner goes in standing up, call the interference and no runner on that team will ever going in standing up again. But not calling it encourages the runner to go in standing up. They will realize that they can gain an advantage by either deflecting the throw or forcing the fielder to throw around them. Eventually the one of the fielders will get pissed off and throw the ball right into the runner's face.

[SAump]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB
NAIA uses the OBR with modifications.

bingo.
http://naia.cstv.com/member-services...bbrulemod1.htm (it says its from 2004 but i cant find anything on the web that differs)

Posted earlier by Brian Curtin on another thread
----------------------

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 slide in direction AWAY from the infielder attempting to make a play.

On force plays, coaches are urged to teach their players to avoid contact and slide directly into the base as if they were being forced out as the third out of an inning.

On a force play, with a two-man umpiring system, if the plate umpire does not have a potential play at the plate, he should move toward the base to observe the runner going into second or third base. In this situation, the base umpire must follow the throw and may not see the true effect of the lead runner's action. (The plate umpire should call interference if he sees that the runner's action causes the fielder to change his pattern of play, which prevents a throw or an attempt to complete a double play.)

If the runner's action (sliding, running) is flagrant, he shall be ejected from the game.

If the batter-runner intentionally interferes with his batted ball or the fielder fielding it, with a double play obvious, the umpire shall rule the batter-runner out and also the runner closest to home plate, regardless of where the double play may have taken place.

[DG]

It's been real interesting, and I have been waiting to weigh in on the obvious. First, I will say that I would not call FPSR on a runner 6-10 feet from the bag. I played SS and 2B when I was youngster and a runner 6-10 feet from the bag is not in my way on a throw to 1B. Any decent middle infielder can make a slight adjustment to throw by him. But the obvious is that the higher you go, the more likely the SS will not give a sh*t whether you get down or not. Do you ever see a major league runner in this situation, no, because they will get beaned and they know it.

[SAump]

I agree with that narrow alley part, PWL. I never seen the bottom sitch you describe on an infield force play. I agree it usually happens alot when a slide and swipe tag is required on a very close play from the outfield. I have never seen it when the ball beats the runner, in either case. I suppose if I was convince the fielder miffed the transfer, then interference would be harder to justify.

I once saw a tall baserunner take one to the teeth from F6 to F3. Baserunner wasn't close enough to slide or fast enough to duck. The HS ruling, FPSR interference and double play. A sub entered the game in his place and his team lossed to CC MOODY. I would think the tactic backfired and he wouldn't be trying it a second time. No argument from OC coach. Corpus Christy Moody is a TX HS baseball powerhouse year after year.

{edited to please SDS and to correct misuse of BR}