runner struck by thrown ball

[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

[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!