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.

[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.