runner struck by thrown ball
 

ball hit to shortstop who tosses to second for force out. Runner from first is approximately 6-l0 feet from second when second baseman catches ball and turns to throw to first for attempted double play. Throw hits runner from first in mid thigh(no way for throw to reach first) and umpire calls batter out for runner interference. Correct Call?

Who did the umpire call interference on? The runner from first or the batter/runner?

Peace

he call interference on the runner from first

That would be the proper enforcement if there was interference ruled by the umpire. This is after all a judgment call. Not much I can say about the judgement of the umpire. What did the runner actually do in the umpire's mind to warrant a call like this?

Peace

Unless R1 was out of direct line between bases by more then 3 feet and was trying to INTENTIONALLY block throw @ 2nd there would have been no interference.

the runner from first was in the basepath directly between first and second. Big, slow kid who was not fast enough to get out of the way or brave enough to intentionally take a thrown ball for the good of the team

Mr. Big,

The 3 feet rule only applies to avoiding a tag. The runner establishes his own baseline between his starting position and the base to which he is advancing or retreating. The runner in this case has to intentionally move into the path of the throw with the intent to block the throw, as you said, in order to judge interference.

The runner establishes his base path, not the baseline. The baseline stays the same because the bases do not move.

Peace

You're right, Rut. I stand (or sit) corrected.

I never noticed the distinction between the two words because they're used interchangeably. Good pickup on that.

Jeff:

Assuming this was a FED game, would you have the runner out for interference due to his proximity to second base on this play? I realize that it's hard to say without seeing the play, but I wonder if that might not apply here.


Tim.

No I would not. The only way I can see calling interference for a play like this if the runner did everything on purpose to get hit by the ball or get in the way of the throw. This play does not sound like that.

Peace

Bear with me, Jeff. I understand that in an OBR game if a runner who has been out out continues to advance, he shall not by that act alone considered to have interfered. I thought that 8-4-2(b) by intent stated that the runner had to either slide or veer away from the throwing lane of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on another runner.


Tim.

Tim,

I don't think the runner has to slide or veer away from the throw. He is not required to slide on a force play, but if he does elect to slide, the slide must be legal. See 8-4-2, EXCEPTIONS AND NOTES. The runner in this case was 6-10 feet from the base and may well have been just about to slide. He still must intentionally interfere with the throw in order to have interfered. The runner would be out if he: a) slides ilegally and causes illegal contact (with the fielder) and/or, b) illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. Getting hit with a thrown ball does not constitute these two things. See the example in Case Book 8-4-2 SIT. R (2005 book), while not the same exact play, still illustrates the point.

Sorry I do not have my rulebooks right here at this moment. I do know that you cannot interfere with a fielder making any play. Now that the very strict interpretation of the rules and I do understand how people can draw a conclusion. I just think it does not make good common sense to call interference on a play like this just because the runner was running where they were supposed to.

Peace

Thanks, guys.


Tim.

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.

I disagree. If the runner was not in direct line of the throw, he does not have to do anything special. If that is the case we would call a runner out going to first base and running directly to the base. If all the runner did in this case was to not run very fast, that is not interference in my book. In this case the runner would have to at least get hit by the ball. Calling this just makes you look over-officious.

Peace

The runner was just "6-10 feet" from second at the time of the force at second and subsequent throw. It is hard to say he wasn't where he was supposed to be...he may have been trying to beat the play. He may even have been preparing to slide. We don't know. I don't believe you can expect a runner who is going full speed and trying to beat the throw to just evaporate or even to suddenly move three feet to one side or another.

You have to be careful rewarding the plunking of runners who do not intentionally interfere. The behaviour this could encourage is scary. I am not saying it was definitely not interference. I am saying that calling this "very easy to call without evening seeing it" is a bit glib...in my opinion. That said, I know a number of umpires will call this interference regardless of the runner's position or intent. I am not one of them.

FED 2006 Interps, Situation 19 is this play, except R1 is "less than halfway to second." In the situation, the play stands (no interference).

Its my understanding that the runner's leeway/allowance on INT decreases as he moves closer to 2B, with INT being more likely esp once the runner is 1/2 to 2B or closer.

If he's less than 1/2 to 2B, the onus is more on the fielder to avoid the runner with his throw. As the runner approaches 2B, the onus shifts to the runner. Of course, at what point it becomes INT is a judgment call by the umpire.

This is how I understand it, but I could be incorrect.

I think I would not have had interference
 

The ball hit him in the thigh 6-10 feet from second. It would take exceptional athletic ability to intentionally interfere with that throw in that way. And I didn't read intent in the sitch.

So, what's the runner supposed to do? He's forced from first. He has to run. I agree with the previous post that if you go get a double play on that sitch, the defense is going to start throwing at runners instead of trying to throw to first. Put some responsibility on the defense to make the play.

Strikes and outs!

I have to believe that they threw in the "less than halfway to second" as a red herring to make it a trick question. What, now we are supposed to bring our tape measures out and determine when the runner has passed 45 feet? I remain steadfast that the runner must intentionally interfere for it to be called.

Intent has nothing to do with the FPSR.

Quote from Rumble: "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."

This was clairified by Bob Jenkins' play. It appears that interference was being called even if the runner was only 20 feet from first base. Bob's play altered Rumble's play to allow runners close to first to not be guilty of interference.

Rumble is a pro interp, and the Jenkins play is a FED play. It is still going to end up being a judgment call by the umpire.

It's going to be pretty hard to say it wasn't interference if the runner was only 6 to 10 feet from the base when he was struck by the ball.


Tim.

If you are going to make that call "automatic", then you are holding the runner responsible for the timing of the fielder's actions and ability.

I make that call on a case by case basis. I do not reward offenses who bobble balls, throw poorly, miss bases and plunk runners at the last second to draw a call.

Brad Rumble is a former NFHS rule interpreter.

Correct...former rules interpreter...and the author of what some FED clincians refer to as Rumble's Ramblings.

So you are rewarding the runner who failed to slide or get out of the way. Where do you expect the fielder to throw the ball when the runner is standing 10 feet away in a direct line between him and first base?

I love those who tell me what I do by jumping to conclusions.

As I said quite clearly, i make this call on a case by case basis. Nothing is automatic on this call...for me. Feel free to utilize a "one size fits all" philosophy on this. I choose not to.

And, yes, I realize I am in the minority on this. Never the less, I will continue to use judgement on this play.

Sorry, I was thinking of Deary by mistake. My bad.:o

Nowhere in rule 8-4-2 does it say that the runner:

a) must slide

or

b) must get out of the way

Where do I expect the fielder to throw the ball? How about coming across the base to take the throw on the inside of the diamond or touching the base and backing away from the base on the outside of the diamond? These are the mechanics which are taught to second basemen.

My opinion -- the FPSR is primarily a safety rule -- protect the middle infielder, not only when there is contact, but when there might be contact. Calling the runer out for being hit by the throw does not protect the middle infielder (that is, there's nothing to protect him from). So, don't call the second out.

If you want to call this interference, go right ahead. I know I personally do not care what you do. I know I am with Garth and many others here. 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.

Peace

I must say, when you're right, you're right! I agree completely. Only in much smaller letters.:)

I knew we had discussed a similar play recently. Bob J mentions an older case play and a new POE in this thread. It seems we're still not all in agreement.



http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...t=26142&page=2



Tim.

Yes, as is evidence by that thread, I have flip-flopped worse than John Kerry.:eek:

I guess I have been pursuaded towards not calling interference, since I cannot find any language that says the runner must "veer off" to avoid being hit by the ball. I would love to see a really definitive answer on this ruling before I make any final opinions on it.:confused:

I am sitting here thinking (I know, that's dangerous) and I think that in the other thread, the runner could clearly see that he was out, while in this case, the runner was busting his butt trying to get to the base on what was a much closer play. Without having seen either play, I would tend to favor the runner who was close to 2nd base when he was hit over the guy who had to have known he was out by 45 feet or so. I feel that judgment should prevail on a case by case basis.

I hadn't read this thread until now, because the title didn't interest me. When I saw how many replies it had generated, I had to look.

Now I have always said (and I believe this was the point GarthB was making) that it is impossible to comment definitively regarding an interference (or obstruction) call without having been there.

Having said that, I can't believe the discussion that has taken place to this point.

Now, there is one material fact that hbenson has omitted from his description of the sitch: what rule code was in effect.

If the game is being played under OBR, this is most likely properly "ruled" E4, live ball, play the bounce.

If the game is being played under FED or NCAA this is almost without a doubt a violation of the Force Play Slide Rule (as, I believe, LDUB was th first to point out), ball is dead, BR is out. If not, the FPSR has no meaning and doesn't really exist.

In the sitch posed by hbenson, the runner is six to ten feet from 2B at the time the pivot man catches the throw from the shortstop. This means he is a lot closer to 2B at the time he is hit by the throw - even the slowest runner will be within a body length of 2B.

This is what the NCAA FPSR says:

"...
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. ..."

So, in the original sitch, we have:

1. A force play

2. A forced runner, in near proximity to his "forced to" base who does not slide

3. An alteration of the play being attempted by the pivot man caused by the forced runner.

Sure sounds like an FPSR violation to me (if you're playing under FED or NCAA).

It might not be. hbenson didn't tell us whether the runner ran "...in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder...".

If he did, then you've got a whole lot of umpire judgement as to whether or not his effort was sufficient to avoid an FPSR violation. If I understand him correctly, I believe this was Garth's point.

Under OBR, on the other hand, there is no FPSR and the runner is explicitly excused from liability for interference if he is simply "continuing his advance", even if he has just been put out. So, unless he did something like stick out his leg to intentionally interfere, it's live ball, play on. If the umpire judges that he did intentionally interfere (other than by continuing his advance), the ball is dead and the BR is out if the umpire also judges that the defense would have put him out absent the interference.

JM

the runner is expected to "slide or avoid" to miss the contact, not a bad throw. The onus is definitely on the defense here. The only way that runner can interfere is intentionally.

I take exception to the 3 foot rule interpretation you have there...

The three foot rule has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on this play...that is when a runner is attempting to avoid a tag...

In this play...remember the rule of thumb that I was taught a long time ago by a MLB umpire...

"By interpretation, there is only one place the runner can be called out for interference for 'unintentionally' interfering with a thrown ball, and that would be runners lane between home and first on a ball being fielded directly to first base. Intent is assumed by him being out of the lane that they gave him to run in to avoid such a play. Getting struck by a thrown ball (unless forced to avoid or slide by FED rules, etc...) simply by running does not constitute interference...intent must be there."

Yes, I remember that! Reggie should have been called out for interference, but I guess the umpires were too much in awe of his stature or something. I couldn't believe what I saw, as he actually intentionally stuck his butt out to interfere.:cool:

Check out F. "As a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base." The runner has to either slide or get out of the way. Running in a direct line between the bases is not getting out of the way.

Key language: "or the play on a force play" What does "play on a force play" mean? A fair reading could be the act of the fielder with the ball touching the bag on a force play. It certainly does not say "the runner must, at all costs, avoid the relay throw coming from second base. If the runner fails to do so, the batter runner shall be declared out." The wizards at NFHS, NCAA and the OBR committee could all put this in there; they didn't.

I still ain't calling this interference, even with a FPSR. This could turn into Keystone Kops in a hurry. My main concern is that if I Godzilla this and get the second out, defenses will start throwing at runners who are close to second, especially when there is a potential whacker at first. What's easier, turning the 6-4-3 the way Tinker to Evers to Chance did it, or plunking happless R1 who is ten feet from second? The leagues I work aren't athletic enough to turn lots of double plays, but they are competitive enough to find a way to get one if I open the door for them.

Strikes and outs!

The way I see it, and I'm not alone in this, is that the rules state that runners are never required to slide (8-4-2{b} NOTE). This takes care of the first part. He only has to execute a legal slide when he is at risk of contacting the fielder, not when he is 10 feet away.

He does have to avoid the fielder (which he is not violating, as he was hit with a thrown ball 6 to 10 feet from the base). So he avoided the fielder.

He also must not interfere with the play on a force at any base (which he is not violating, because the play on the force was already successful). Since he was retired on the force play, he did not interfere with that play.

8-4-2(f) has everything to do with the play at the base itself, not any following play, such as a relay to first to complete a double play.

The runner was plunked by a ball on a play on which the fielder could have done a much better job of turning the double play. Unless the runner intentionally allowed the ball to hit him, or made a move to get hit by the ball in some way, I don't have interference.

If the runner chooses not to slide then he must attempt to avoid the play. Running in a direct line between the bases is not avoiding the play.

So by your logic if F6 steps to the side of second base and is taken out by R1's slide it is not interference. R1 was retired on the force play, it was already sucessful therefore R1 cannot interfere with the play.

8-4-2F is the force play slide rule. The FPSR is all about the throw to first base on the double play.

So if the runner is standing directly between the fielder and first base, where do you expect the fielder to throw the ball? R1 should have been either on the ground (sliding) so the fielder can throw over him or veering off to the side (getting out of the way) so the fielder has clear lane to throw the ball.

The play already happened. The throw to first is not the play being referred to.


No, that would be interference, because F6 still has the ball, and the runner did not legally slide directly into the base. You are comparing apples to pommegranites here.

No, the FPSR is all about not crashing the pivot man on a double play. It has nothing to do with once the ball is thrown. If the runner comes in standing up and forces the pivot man to make an errant throw, then he has violated the FPSR.

How do you expect a runner who is trying to reach the base safely, and is within 6 to 10 feet from the base to "veer off" or slide? If he slides, he comes up short. What if the pivot man drops the ball, and the runner slid in anticipation of the throw and ends up 3 feet short of the base?

Like I said before, the fielders turning the DP are trained to either come across the base to make their throws, or to touch the base and do a push-off step backward (2nd baseman only) to throw. It only takes a slight adjustment to avoid throwing the ball into the baserunner, and it is the fielders job to do this, not the runners.

You obviously never played 2nd base.

Question
Is the FPSR only intended for the safety of the pivot man?

R1 comes directly into 2nd standing tall. F4 is doing the push off step backward throwing directly to F3 on the bag and plants it directly into R1s forehead. R1 goes down with major concussion and brain hemmorage.
What do you got?
I've got interference on R1 and he's out (in more ways than one)
FPSR is for the protection of BOTH runner and fielder.
No where in the rules that I've read does it say that fielder must adjust his throw to avoid runner.

I have played every position in baseball except pitcher, which I tried once and was really bad at it. I have played baseball since I was a small child, all the way adult baseball. I played Pony, Colt and Thoroughbred (now called Palomino), instead of HS ball, because I played Varsity Golf in high school. I was a Physical Education major in college, and was proficient in 12 sports to at least the intermediate level.

Not trying to pick on you Steve, but I have another question.
How far from the base does a proper feet first slide start for a 6' player?
How about a head first slide?
On a head first slide, how far out is the runner when he begins to lower the torso in anticipation of the dive forward?
I'll bet you a cold one it's much further than 6' and a little bit further than 10'.
If you're 6' tall and you start your dive 6' away from base, you'll be past the base before you land.
you may be dead on in your rules interp, though I disagree, but this defense does not ring true.

I was not intending to impune your athletic prowess. Nor was I refferring to any of the other 11 sports.
I stand corrected, you played 2nd.
I guess I'd have to say there is a difference in playing 2nd and intimately knowing the position.
In my experience, F4s and F6s are not taught to adjust their throw to avoid the runner. If there is a coach that does promote this then I think he needs to be a croquet coach, not baseball.

All it takes is one runner to get beaned on the relay and I'll guarantee you all other runners the rest of the game will veer off or slide.
I think FPSR is trying to avoid the first one

I'd say 10 ft. is about right, but I would still have to see the play before calling interference. I'm not going to just willy-nilly give a blanket interference call with just the fact that R1 got nailed with the throw.

I was originally in the camp that called it interference, but as I said, I have had a change in position, ala John Kerry. I voted for the interference, before I voted against it. Pretty spooky, huh?

If your not picking on me, how about arguing with some of the other folks who have taken this position, huh?

Yes, that is what is supposed to happen. The coaches should be telling the runners to slide or veer off. Common sense and self preservation should tell a runner this, and in most cases, that is what happens.

I did not see the play in question, so I don't know what led up the the runner being hit with the ball. Perhaps the defense muffed the play at the beginning and the outcome of the play at 2nd was still in doubt.

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.

If you were really John Kerry like then I'd be more tempted to impune, discredit and make fun you of as opposed to argue with.

I consider it more of a debate than an argument and your post gave me the best opportunity to present my perspective of FPSR being for the benefit of both the runner and fielder.
If FPSR is for both then IMO the perspective of how it is interpreted changes.
Based on my opinion of the intent of FPSR the responsibility falls on the runner to avoid the relay in a DP situation. If a fielder throws at a runner, trying to draw an interference, then I've got unsportsmanlike conduct.
For me it's a safety rule and I'm going to interpret for the safety of both.

I'm still trying to figure out how a runner that is six feet from second base gets plunked in the thigh with a ball that is supposed to go all the way to first. Is the runner 7 feet tall? Is the second baseman only three-feet tall? Was he throwing underhand? It reads to me like the second baseman intentionally threw at the runners legs to try to get the interference call.

Christ if he got hit in the thigh standing up, he probably would have taken it to the face if he did slide, maybe that is why he didn't.

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.

Now we're really getting into pure conjecture.
Maybe at the last second F4 decided he didn't want to kill R1 and threw down to avoid beaning him in the head.
Maybe the throw to F4 was low and he was firing sidearm.
Maybe F4 tried stopping his throwing motion, again to avoid killing R1 and the ball came out of his hand and hit the thigh.
Maybe it was just a bad throw, but directly in line with F3.

I want this kid on my team.
If he has the ability to react to a ball thrown 10' away while running directly toward the thrower then he's superman.
Imagine what he could do to a ball thrown from 60' and him standing still.

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?

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.)

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.

PWL,

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

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!

Interference Ramblings
 

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.

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.

NAIA Modification 7.09 A
 

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.

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.

Never Seen It
 

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}

Sometimes on the internet people have posted about how they think it is funny when the first base coach tells Johnny to break up the double play because there is no legal way to break up a double play. So what if that slight adjustment slowed down the fielder just enough that the BR was safe at first? If you are allowing runners to intentionally get hit by throws (if you ingore it long enough, coaches will begin teaching their runners to go in standing up) and alter the throws of fielders by going in standing up you are letting the offense break up the double play.

So the runner should be able to make the fielder step to the side to create a throwing lane? That step to the side could be the difference between the BR being out or safe. I don't see how there is any debate over this play as the runner did not slide an obviously altered the play of the fielder.

That is what I have been saying all along. The runner should either get on the ground or get out of the way.

Good baseball don't have these problems
 

Teams that play good baseball don't have these problems as F6 and F4 are taught the proper fundamentals of taking the turn over second etc., on the double play ball.

However, unless there is obvious interference with the play, its going to be a stretch to call a FPSR in FED ball by an umpire saying it looked like he interfered with the play, or I thought he interfered with the throw.

I don't have the quote with me, but Carl had a great article a while back on the FPSR. R1 slides legally but hard into F4 making the turn on the DP. Coach, "that's interference". Umpire, "quit playing freshmen in the infield"

thanks
David

I beg to differ.
Good middle infielders are taught not to adjust their throw to avoid a runner.
All they need to do is put one hard one between the eyes of an interfering runner and they won't have to worry about making "adjustments" ever again playing that team.

I believe FPSR is for the safety of both runner and fielder. If so, it is easy to interpret the language of the rule to mean the runner needs to get out of the way. Do you really believe Fed intended to leave a loophole allowing the runner to legally get one upside the head?
For me, it's not a stretch to interpret and enforce a rule that encourages a runner to do what every major leaguer does, get the heck out of the way and prevent brain damage.
When I was in HS and College I was young and stupid and sometimes pi##ed off at the other team. There's nothing I would've liked better than to have a free shot at a runner. Until Fed. says different I have to believe they are trying to avoid the free shot.

The only way R1 can slide hard 'into' F4 is if F4 is on the first base side of the bag, in which case he is on his own. Anywhere else, if R1 is sliding hard into him I've got interference and quite possibly sending R1 home to do his chores.

basically the rule is slide or avoid. to be honest, from a former middle infielder's perspective, I'd like to try to turn the dang double play instead of depending on the umpire to make a tough call. especially in High School, that's what you're going to see...this is a pretty tough call to make because there's a wide open gray area for us umpires to use when making the decision...granted the slam dunk calls can be made by anybody...but lots of coaches simply don't know the rules. Bottom line...that's why this thread is so long...because there isn't a black and white answer here...this is a judgement call that absolutely needs to be sold by the umpire.

Many of you are talking about a flippin' 6 foot rule...what are you going to do...get a tape measure out on the field and realize that when it measures out to 6' 1" that not it's not interference??? C'mon...none of us would do that...99% of your runners will simply give themselves up by running into the infield grass unless it's going to be a banger at second or something like that...this isn't that tough of a call, unless you keep thinking about it...Sell whatever call you decide to make...there is not a Black or White answer here.

Have a great weekend,
Umpire John

DG,

Other than your 2nd sentence, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say in your post.

However, if the game is being played under a code with the FPSR (let's say FED, for example) your ruling would be wrong - as in incorrect; i.e., a misapplication of the rules. Your judgement that the pivot man should have been able to avoid the runner (which, in the general case, I happen to agree with) is completely irrelevant to the proper call on the play.

Because, under the FED FPSR rule, it is, both by rule and official interpretation, interference. The FED FPSR rule dramatically changes the "balance of the game" in favor of the defense.

If the runner is forced, he must either:

1. Slide legally directly to the bag

or

2. Run in a direction away from the fielder

If he fails to do so and "alters the play" (or contacts the fielder), he has, by rule, interfered. Both he and the BR are out. Any other runners return to their TOP base. That's what the rule says, and that's what the case play and interpretation say. There is no interpretation that says otherwise.

There is a degree of ambiguity in the rule and the case play. Specifically, there is no specific criteria regarding how close the runner must be to his "forced to" base for the FPSR to be in effect. The case play suggests that if the runner is "less than halfway", he is not subject to the FPSR.

This is what Carl C. said in one of a series of articles on the subject on 12/1703: (if you're a paid subscriber, you can read itself here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3524)

Dave Emerling also wrote a (profusely illustrated) series on the subject which can be found here:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4225 .

As described, the original play is almost certainly a violation by the R1 of the FPSR. I say it that way, because I didn't see the play. The pivot man may have "gone out of his way" to intentionally hit the R1 with the throw, rather than legitimately trying to complete the DP. The "slow" R1 may have been initiating a legal slide when the throw hit him. But, as presented, it's a violation. So, there are certainly elements of judgement, but whether or not the pivot man "should have" been able to throw around the runner ain't one of them.

Some have suggested that the rule only protects the "safety" of the pivot man - not that of the runner. Balderdash! The safety of both is afforded equal protection.

Others have suggested that it is only the force at the "forced to" base that is contemplated. That is utter nonsense. If that were true, the penalty would not be an "automatic" double play, it would simply be the forced runner being called out.

LDUB and a couple of others seem to understand this. Many others seem to "not like" the rule and feel they can ignore it if they judge that the pivot man should have been able to complete the throw. I'm not particularly fond of the significant shift in the balance of the game in favor of the defense created by this rule either, but it IS a rule.

If I teach my players to comply with this rule, my opponent does not, and you, as umpires, choose to ignore it, you have given my opponent an unfair advantage.

I challenge any of you to provide a credible rule reference, case play, or interpretation that says I misconstrue how the rule should be applied. If you can, I'm all ears (eyes?), because I don't particularly like the rule either. I don't think one exists. Yet.

JM

How do you know that "as presented" it's a violation? As written, it was extremely unclear as to whether or not the fielder threw the ball at the runner intentionally to draw an interference call. Unless you see the play with your own two eyes, it is really impossible to accurately call this play. For instance, it was mentioned that the runner was hit in the thigh with the ball. Was he a midget? What kind of throw would hit the runner in the thigh? Most certainly not one that would make it to first base! I can easily invision F4 thinking, "well, I can't get 2 here, so I'm nailin' this joker. That'll teach him to slide!"

I think what Carl wrote about Rumbles Rambling in the BRD summed it up pretty well, in that the interpretation came out in 1998, and its wording has not yet been incorporated into either the rule or the casebook. If it was such a good way of ruling, the Federation rules makers should have included it in the language of the rule itself, so threads like this would be unnecessary.

Steve,

If you carefully read the first part of my post that you quoted , I hope you will see that I am in "violent agreement" with your comments in the paragraph you wrote beneath that quote.

By my read of the BRD and Carl's series of articles on the subject, I would guess that he is not a big fan of the Rumble ruling on the question. However, despite that, I believe he suggests that it SHOULD BE followed in ruling on the situation because it IS the official interpretation, is further reinforced by the "Situation 19" posted on the NFHS website in the 2006 rulings (referenced by Bob Jenkins earlier in this thread), and has not been superceded by ANYTHING. Yet.

JM

It's not interference.
 

Where does this end?

Play: R1, 0 out. F6, who thinks R1 might be stealing on the pitch, is cheating towards the second base bag. The batter hits what intially appears to be a line drive towards second. The liner short hops F6 (no intentional drop), but he fields it and then steps on the bag, forcing R1. R1, dutifully retreating towards first because he didn't want to get doubled off, is now plunked in the back of the skull with F6's throw attempting to turn two. Did R1 interfere? Must I now declare the BR out also?

Are you kidding me?

Was R1, under all circumstances supposed to avoid F6's throw to first, including, literally, eyes in the back of his head (and, I take it, through his batting helmet)?

The so-called halfway rule (which means, in all seriousness, that a runner who suspects he might be forced would have to get down or out of the way 45 feet from second base.) appears nowhere in the official rules of FED or OBR or the casebooks that I have. Besides that, where are both umpires looking in a two-man system on a double play at second? At second, of course. The BU is looking to make sure the fielder has possession of the ball and puts the tag on the base before R1 gets there; the PU is primarily responsible for the crash, if there is one, at or beyond the second base bag. Who is looking in the general direction of the right-field foul pole on this play?

I am a firm believer in not drawing lines on the baseball field that are not already called for in the rules. We already have a 45-foot line on the way from home to first. Are we now drawing 45 foot lines between first and second, second and third and third and home?

Here's what the FED rule says: "Any runner is out when he does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, or on a force play, does not slide on a direct line between the bases . . . " 8-4-2b. The penalty calls for the BR to be out also. The original sitch does not involve a slide, so we can dispense with that part of the rule. And, as already mentioned, R1 is not forced to slide, but if he slides, he must do so legally (i.e., on the direct line between the bases). Now we are left with determining whether R1 "illegally" altered the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play.

So here's the basic question under the FED rules: In the original sitch, is R1 illegally altering the actions of the fielder by getting hit in the thigh? I did not see the play, obviously. But I am going to tell you that I am an awful long way from ringing up two when a runner gets plunked in the thigh 6 feet from second.

Strikes and outs!

Very good point!
 

Exactly what I was thinking about this type of play. The runner is doing what he is supposed do, he can't just disappear.

Its the job of the defense to make the proper play and players that are taught properly will make the play.

Its not our job as umpires to bail out a F6 or F4 who throws the ball and hits the runner.

At least that is my reading in all of the various books that I've read for FED rules etc.,

Now if the runner does anything intentional, throws up hands, veers into the path of the throw etc., then I've got interference since he interfered with the play.

Simply to be running to the base legally and then getting hit with the ball on a poor throw does not imply interference in my book.

Thansk
David

Except the runner is not doing what he is supposed to be doing, runners are not supposed to go into second base standing up on a force play.

So then the fielder should have to adjust his throw to avoid the standing runner. If the runner is directly between the fielder and first base, the fielder has two ways in which he can throw to first: Step to the side and then throw, or throw the ball over the runner. Stepping to the side takes time, and a lob throw is not a quick as a direct throw. Either way the runner is giving the BR extra time to beat the throw to first. Wouldn't you say that runner is altering the play? Now of course if the fielder comes across the base, steps and throws all in one motion then the runner did not alter the play of the fielder in any way. But if the fielder notices that the runner is blocking his throwing lane to first and then adjusts his throw then the runner has altered the play.

Point of Clarification
 

In order to say the runner interfered with the play, does BU have to judge that the fielder would have had a chance to turn the DP at first? In other words, if the throw obviously would have been too late, do you call interference anyway if you are of the school of thought that the runner has to get out of the fielder's way?

Paul L.,

Good question. Oddly enough, even if, in the umpire's judgement, the defense did NOT have a chance to turn the double play (absent the FPSR violation), the violation of the FPSR results in a double play. Strikes me as a little odd, but that's the rule (under FED & NCAA).

JM

P.S. Hey, I don't write 'em, I only try to understand 'em.

You're not bailing anyone out. By enforcing the rule you are potentially saving future runners from brain damage.

There seems to be a myth among many umpires that middle infielders are taught to 'adjust' their throw to avoid oncoming runners. This myth is as foolish and misguided as "the tie goes to the runner" myth. Any upper level coaches reading this thread are laughing at you much like we impune coaches for their ignorance of the rules.

Any runner who comes in daring the thrower to hit him is indeed not very smart, but no one ever accused these kids of genius.
You can't always legislate for stupidity, but coaches understand automatic DP for interference and will teach slide or get out of the way for strategic purpose if for no other reason.

I'm sure many of you will continue to allow the runner to come in standing up and hopefully force the fieder to adjust his throw. I wonder though how you'll feel the first time one of these runners ends up in the hospital with brain damage. I hope it never happens, but if it does I wonder if you'll think back to this discussion and think 'yea maybe this is one of the things FPSR was trying to prevent?'
For me, if I'm doing a Fed. game, I'm erring on the side of safety. For all of Feds faults we all know that their intention is safety.

Brain damage???
 

Guys are cracking me up. I'll have to research the last time I've seen a kid with brain damage from a throw in the infield.

That's why we wear helmets - its called baseball, and sometimes its a rough game.

Kids get hit by throws all the time - the point is that we are officials. Our job is to call the rules, not protect the players from injury.

By rule, the player that wants to run to second instead of sliding has the right to do that without interference being called simply because he was standing up.

Our job as umpires is to make a judgement on whether there was interference or not. (And that is very very seldom going to be the result)

Over 28 years of calling baseball and i dont' have one mention in my journal of a kid being hurt by a throw from f4 or f6 on the DP. Seen a lot of close ones, but that's what makes it such a great game.

Thanks
David

I agree. Not only that, but I can't even count the number of injuries I've seen from sliding at second on a DP- getting stepped on, jamming the base, colliding with the fielder, INJURING THE FIELDER- we've all seen it.

Going in standing up isn't smart, but is isn't illegal either. We've all been taught the 'illegal' versions- waving arms, running at the fielder who is off the line, sliding at the fielder off the bag.

I think it would be MORE dangerous to implement a 'MUST SLIDE' rule on a DP- plus, what happens if the ball goes through? Or gets airmailed past the fielder on 2nd? R1 has to slide anyway? R1 has to assume that the play at 2 will be clean?

No way.


Bainer.

You forgot failing to slide and altering the play.

No one has said anything about forcing runners to slide. No one has said that if the runner does not slide that it is interference. What has been said is that the runner either has to slide or attempt to avoid the play.

Why do you not want this runner to slide? Do you want him to run full speed through second base and continue to third because he can't assume that he will be out at second? I think you are very confused. You seem to be thinking that there are people here who want the runner to slide into second base at all times. Where did you get the idea that someone wanted R1 to slide into second base when the ball gets through the infield?

Helmets won't help when a hard throw from F4 catches the runner between the eyes at 6'

Many rules, especially in Fed, are safety rules. Therefore if we call the rules correctly we are doing our part in maintaining safety and preventing injury.

That's the debate at the moment. Some say by rule he does not have that right if it alters the play.

I agree, most kids have enough sense to get out of the way

So baseball is like NASCAR. The closer a player gets to serious injury the greater the game?
For 20 of your 28 years there was no FPSR, now there is and the debate is not how many times it will or could happen, the debate is if it does happen what is the call. I say again, IMO FPSR is for the the runners safety as well as the fielders, therefore I interpret that runner must get out of the way.
The play is in front of him. Sliding or veering to avoid the relay throw is not a hardship. It's different from what baseball was for many years, but it is what it is.
Some old dogs might have to learn a new trick.

Those are two different things- I can not slide and not alter the play, OR, I can slide AND alter the play. Altering the play has nothing to do with sliding or not.


Look back at the thread. At least three people have suggested that failure to slide should be considered interference.

At no point did I say I didn't want him to slide. I feel that like catching bare-handed or switch-hitting, sliding is a strategy call that should be made by coaches and players, not umpires. I couldn't care less if a player slides ir not- but I do not think it's right to mandate a slide in any situation. If a player can go into second standing up without committing rulebook interference, more power to him. I'm not sonfused- I just haven't drank the interference koolaid.

There ARE people here who want the runner to slide into second at all times- I've read their posts. No one suggested R1 slide into second when the ball gets through, but if you mandate a slide at second, people will be sliding in on blown plays.

Look, I'm pro rule book, and beyond that, I'm pro league rules. If a league wants to implement a rule- great, I'll call it. But until then, game on.


Bainer.

Fpsr
 

Major point of emphasis every year from NCAA on down.

What am I missing?
a) Runner must clear the baseline by veering away from a possible play.
b) Runner doesn't slide because he can stop on a dime.
c) Runner doesn't slide to avoid leaving skid marks.
d) Runner intends to go around throw after he touches second base.

I hate to do it but I am going to agree with CoachJM on this. His argument is eloquent and convincing. Rumble's ruling in 1998, and Situation 19 in the 2006 Interpretations indicate that FED wants this called.

"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)"

This suggests that being less than half-way when struck is not interference so one could surmise that being more than half-way is. The runner has at least as much time to make a slight adjustment in his path as the pivot man has to make a slight adjustment to his throw. If FED wants safety then runners should move over when they can clearly see they are out on a FP.

PU should be watching the runner, not 2B, to see if there is a FPSR violation. BU has the play at 2B, and then the play at 1B.

I don't recall ever having this happen, but if it does, I will be ready for the discussion, if one arises.

Good point
 

As I've been saying all along, don't reward the defense if they can't make the play.

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.

All this talk about safety is good, but it has to coincide with the rules.

FPSR was put in the book to protect the F6 or F4, not the runner.

Thanks
David

No one slides halfway to the base, but everyone can move out of the way if they see they have been forced out. A dropped throw would not be one that would hit the runner. A foot off the bag would be easy enough to see also, and they can continue, after a step sideways to the bag. It seems clear that FED wants this called if the runner is within 45 feet of the bag. You may not like it, or agree with it, but that is too bad.

Read Rumbles ruling and Situation 19 from 2006 interprations and stop agreeing with PWL. You will be better for it.

That is quite a giant leap in logic. I could build a diagram based on any or all of the following logical fallacies:

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options.

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Just because an example was given in which a ficticous runner was not guilty of interference because he was less than halfway to second, does not necessarily mean that if he is past halfway, he is guilty of interference.
______________________________________________

The BU only relinqueshes his call at 2nd base when the throw turns him to 1st base. In this case, the throw hit the runner, so it is still the BU's call all the way.

There are quite a number of people who disagree with you besides PWL. We have all had the opportunity now to read Rumble's "ruling" which has yet to be incorporated in plain English in either the Rule Book or the Case Book. Perhaps you should review the entire thread and count the number of folks who remain undecided, or think that it could possibly not be interference.

Situation 19 is an example, and not a cut and dried, "one size fits all" rule to end all rules. It only addresses a runner who is less than halfway to 2nd base. It does not address a runner who is 10 feet from the base who may or may not be in the act of beginning to slide when hit by a throw which is less than 3 feet off the ground, hit the runner in the thigh, and more than likely would not have made it to 1st base anyway.

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.

One more argument
 

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.

8-4-1h says

any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious DP

2-21-1 says
Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:
a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

1. Nothing in the rule infers intent.
2. If F4 has to change his throwing motion to avoid R1 then it's not a stretch to say he was impeded, hindered or obstructed. I think they use all these words to get the point accross.

NFHS under points of emphasis

FORCE PLAY SLIDE RULE vs RUNNER INTERFERENCE: Simply stated, the runner never has to slide. However, on a force play when he does slide, it must be legal and in direct line between the two bases. A runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. .... (my bold)

All of these rules are very consistent
R1 can't make F4 alter or change his throwing motion by coming into the base standing up.

What part of this is so difficult to understand?

It is also interference if the runner alters the play, not just makes contact.

But the case rulings also say that:

1) there is no INT if the fielder has already released the ball to 1B (ie, the play at 2B is essentially complete), and;

2) there is no INT if the fielder is contacted *in front of the bag* (ie, on the baseline b/w 1B and 2B) and the runner makes a legal slide IAW FPSR.