runner struck by thrown ball

[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.

[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

[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 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.

[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]

(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

[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.

[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.