runner struck by thrown ball

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by LDUB

The runner was not where he was supposed to be. The runner has two options: Slide or get out of the way. He did neither and altered the play by being hit with a thrown ball. That is interference. This play is very easy to call without even seeing it.

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

[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 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.

[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)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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:


Quote:
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.

I've always had trouble understanding this ("close *AND* has time to react")rationale. It seems to me that if a runner is "close" to the base, he has less time to react than if he is "far" from the base. So, I don't see how a runner who is "close" to the base can interfere if he's hit, while a runner who is "far" from a base is not deemed to have interfered -- I'd expect the runner who is "far" from the base to have interfered by being "willfully indifferent" (to borrow a phrase that's usually applied to another topic.)

Heck, I could even see FED comng up with three "zones":

1) The runner is close enough that he would reach the base with a straight in slide: Interference if the runner is hit.

2) The runner is far enough away to have time to react: Interference if hit, unless he tries to get out of the way (judged similarly to hit-by pitch).

3) In between: Nothing. The runner was too far away to slide, and had no time to react to the throw.

Of course, this would violate the FED's "lowest common umpire denominator" philosophy.

In any event, the whole FPSR rule has long been confusing -- it's covered in both 8-4-2b and 8-4-2f, Rumble and Hopkins give rulings that don't make it to the case book (and which, to some readers, are directly contrary to what's written in the rule and case books), case book rulings that come close to clarifying but only serve to obsfucate (e.g., is the "less than 1/2 way to second" phrase in the current year's interp meaningful?), the use of the phrase "contact or alters" in 8-4-2b and the inclusion of that phrase only in some of the definitions of ilelgal slide in 2-32, ...

Maybe FED will take a look at clearing this up / clarifying the rule. Until then, we'll have the differences of opinion as expressed here.

[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.