FEDlandia FPSR

[bob jenkins]

Play 10 is clearly wrong. A FED interp last year and this year (Situation 3) indicate that this is not interference unless R1's actions were intentional.

Play 9 is what is at issue in this thread.

[LittleLeagueBob]

Originally Posted by David B

Even though it is obvious the runner is illegally sliding toward the fielder, it is not interference

This sentence in the comment section of Play 9 is what troubles me -- let's skip for the moment the argument of whether or not each of us thinks the slide was legal or not and accept the author's opinion...

8-4-2b "...but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal." Since the slide wasn't legal - by the author's admission, why would we not enforce the penalty (interference, and because of FPSR - runner and batter-runner out, and return runners)?

[David B]

Originally Posted by LittleLeagueBob

This sentence in the comment section of Play 9 is what troubles me -- let's skip for the moment the argument of whether or not each of us thinks the slide was legal or not and accept the author's opinion...

8-4-2b "...but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal." Since the slide wasn't legal - by the author's admission, why would we not enforce the penalty (interference, and because of FPSR - runner and batter-runner out, and return runners)?

I think in rule 8 its talking about a legal slide as in NOT a rollling block, foot higher than the knee etc.,

Its not talking about the path the runner is taking in the slide, that's covered in rule 2.

The reason its not enforced is because it did NOT alter the play - and there was not contact.

That's my take

Thanks
David

[David B]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Play 10 is clearly wrong. A FED interp last year and this year (Situation 3) indicate that this is not interference unless R1's actions were intentional.

Play 9 is what is at issue in this thread.

Thanks Bob, I forgot about that.. I'll have to fix that before I give it out in my next class setting.

Thanks
David

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Play 10 is clearly wrong. A FED interp last year and this year (Situation 3) indicate that this is not interference unless R1's actions were intentional.

Bob,

If only it were so clear to me.

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)

So, I would agree that this interp is a step in the right direction. It suggests to me that a runner who is "not even halfway" to his forced-to base is not subject to the constraints of the FPSR.

What it doesn't say terribly clearly is at what point of advance the runner is subject to the constraints. I guess the best we have is at the stage of advance where he might reasonably be "expected to slide".

In Carl's play #10, the runner is "perhaps 30 feet" from 2B when hit with the throw. Now I would concur with Bob that the above Situation #3 does make a "no FPSR" call supportable.

On the other hand, Carl's suggested ruling (i.e. "double play" for FPSR violation) is also supportable under the situation. Because the runner is "more than halfway" when he "altered the play".

God forbid this happens in one of my games; but, if it does, I'm gonna go with Bob's suggested ruling. I just wish they'd be a little clearer about what they meant.

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Bob,

If only it were so clear to me.



So, I would agree that this interp is a step in the right direction. It suggests to me that a runner who is "not even halfway" to his forced-to base is not subject to the constraints of the FPSR.

What it doesn't say terribly clearly is at what point of advance the runner is subject to the constraints. I guess the best we have is at the stage of advance where he might reasonably be "expected to slide".

In Carl's play #10, the runner is "perhaps 30 feet" from 2B when hit with the throw. Now I would concur with Bob that the above Situation #3 does make a "no FPSR" call supportable.

On the other hand, Carl's suggested ruling (i.e. "double play" for FPSR violation) is also supportable under the situation. Because the runner is "more than halfway" when he "altered the play".

God forbid this happens in one of my games; but, if it does, I'm gonna go with Bob's suggested ruling. I just wish they'd be a little clearer about what they meant.

JM

As you suggested its not going to happen very often, but if it does I would guess based on what we have read that it will all come down to the umpires judgement of 1)whether it was intentional or not or 2) was he close enough to the base to warrant a slide.

That's a tough call.

Thanks
David

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David B

As you suggested its not going to happen very often, but if it does I would guess based on what we have read that it will all come down to the umpires judgement of 1)whether it was intentional or not or 2) was he close enough to the base to warrant a slide.

That's a tough call.

Thanks
David

Yes, that's how I'd interpret it (but others have had a different opinion). If R1 is close enough to slide, then he's close enough to make contact / alter the play -- his options are to slide or run away.

[DG]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

DG,

Please expound.

I'm new to umpiring and I'll be doing my 1st "real" NFHS games this year (probably just Frosh & JV).

The last five years I've coached summer youth (13-14 yr. olds) travel leagues, some of which alledgedly played under FED rules. In five years, I've seen an FPSR called exactly once and have had one coaching colleague ask me about an FPSR call that occurred in one of his games. First time he's ever seen it called, & he's been doing it longer than I have.

SO, I went & read the FED rule & the case plays, and I'm not sure how I would call this in a game.

I would be inclined to select jkumpire's "B", though I would add "...and executed a legal slide." to the end of the first sentence of "B". In combination with the rule 2 definition of a legal slide, I think that is what the text of the FPSR rule says. It also strikes me as the "right" call from an intent perspective - not to mention it "feels" right, to me.

So, if you think he should be out, please explain. I find the rule ambiguously worded and don't have exceptional confidence in my interpretation. So, if you've got a different train of thought, let's hear it.

JM

As the post's that follow confirm it is a confusing subject with many interpretations.

From the 2007 FED Casebook 2.32.2 Situation B: "R1 is on third base and R2 is on first base with no outs. A ground bal is hit to F6, who throws to F4 at second base. R2 slides out of the base path in an attempt to prevent F4 from turning the double play. RULING: Since R2 did not slide directly into second base, R2 is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. R1 returns to third base, the base occupied at the time of the pitch. "

This ruling did not say anything about whether the runner actually altered the play or not.

On 3/20/00 McNeely said this: "The best answer I can provide is if a baserunner commits an illegal slide, and during that illegal slide makes contact with a fielder or alters the immediate play, call the interfererence. If the illegal slide did not alter the play or no contact was made, there is no call."

On 4/20/01 Fethchiet (NCAA) said this: "The runner is guilty of interference when he slides to the side of the base occupied by the pivot man, even if he does not make contact or alter the play."

The last two quotes are out of the 2006 BRD.

I don't see anything in the 2007 NCAA rulebooks that contradicts this quote. In fact it says "whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule." Actions that are illegal include "the runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder"

So pick the casebook or someone's quote you like and make the call. I prefer the most recent casebook, especially if it has an exact example. The intent of the FPSR is to protect players from injury so punish the ones who are making an illegal effort to go after another player whether they make contact or not. Allowing an offense to go unpunished will promote such behavior not stop it, so not calling it is contrary to the intent.

[jkumpire]

Well,

This has been an interesting discussion! I brought the subject up because I am a local FED rules interpreter, and I still find myself in a quandry about the rule.

Why? Because this discussion has missed one point about the rule. The rule as writen was put in as a safety rule. If it is a safety rule, then we have an obligation to enforce it whether or not there is contact/altering the play.

That is why I have a hard time telling someone not to call the FPSR as written unless there is alteration/contact. What if we let a FPSR call go, then a week later the same kid has a FPSR called on him, after he trashes some kid's knee? I have a former D1 player in my umpire's class this year whose career ended because someone trashed his ACL on a FPSR violation (in an NCAA game).

I would like to see FED do a total rewrite of the rule, and maybe we on the web site can offer language to them to help clarify the problem.

Other comments?

[David B]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Well,

This has been an interesting discussion! I brought the subject up because I am a local FED rules interpreter, and I still find myself in a quandry about the rule.

Why? Because this discussion has missed one point about the rule. The rule as writen was put in as a safety rule. If it is a safety rule, then we have an obligation to enforce it whether or not there is contact/altering the play.

That is why I have a hard time telling someone not to call the FPSR as written unless there is alteration/contact. What if we let a FPSR call go, then a week later the same kid has a FPSR called on him, after he trashes some kid's knee? I have a former D1 player in my umpire's class this year whose career ended because someone trashed his ACL on a FPSR violation (in an NCAA game).

I would like to see FED do a total rewrite of the rule, and maybe we on the web site can offer language to them to help clarify the problem.

Other comments?

I think it probably is intended as a safety rule, but IMO the problem is OBR.

We watch it on TV and what happens ... the trickle down effect is hard to beat.

FED and NCAA have tried but its tough because some umpires were calling everything a FPSR.

IMO that's why they finally added the parts about making contact or altering the play.

Maybe its just in our area, but we get very few calls during the season on the FPSR - I guess for once the coaches have learned and actually taught their kids to do it right??

Thanks
David

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

I don't see anything in the 2007 NCAA rulebooks that contradicts this quote.

NCAA 8-4b(1) has changed this year. (It was 8-4c(1) last year): Actions by a runenr are illegal and interference shall be called if: (1) The runner slides or runs out of the baseline in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder (with or without contact).

The bold part was added.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

If it is a safety rule, then we have an obligation to enforce it whether or not there is contact/altering the play.

If there's no contact/alteration (as in R1 going to an uncovered 2B), how was safety compromised?

[DG]

Originally Posted by LMan

If there's no contact/alteration (as in R1 going to an uncovered 2B), how was safety compromised?

By allowing we train the players and coaches to think it is ok, so sooner or later safety is compromised, maybe not on the one play but in the future.