force play slide rule?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by ggk

ncaa.
R1, 1 out. slow roller to F5. he fields the ball and throws to F4 who catches the ball for the force. F4 is standing on the back of the bag - left field side - when he catches it. there was no way that he was going to have a chance to make a play at first and made no indication that he was going to throw to first. R1 slows down going into 2nd, but does not slide and his momentum carries him forward and he makes slight contact with F4. he does not knock F4 down or do anything malicious. he clearly did not alter the play as there was no additional play being made.

i was BU and I had nothing. i stayed with the play at 2nd as there was no throw being made to 1st. PU called interference because R1 did not slide or avoid F4.

is this a violation of FPSR?? any difference in FED??

thanks.

Well, There was no slide so all the arguing of illegal slide or sliding over the top of the base means nothing here! Under no circumstances, is a runner required to slide, but if he does, he must adhere to the rules of FPSR (FED included). Along with this, if a runner chooses not to slide, he may not interfere in any way with a fielder making a play or throw.

All of these things into consideration, this play is defiantly a HTBT. The reason being that "If in my judgment", there was no possibility of a DP continuing, then the OP would not be interference. Oh by the way, when in doubt, I side with the defense not the offense in this decision.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Along with this, if a runner chooses not to slide, he may not interfere in any way with a fielder making a play or throw.

While this is true, there need not be play for there to be interference. That is my original point.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

While this is true, there need not be play for there to be interference. That is my original point.

Jeez, if you're not going to read the entire post why did I bother? See ya later!

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Well, There was no slide so all the arguing of illegal slide or sliding over the top of the base means nothing here! Under no circumstances, is a runner required to slide, but if he does, he must adhere to the rules of FPSR (FED included). Along with this, if a runner chooses not to slide, he may not interfere in any way with a fielder making a play or throw.

All of these things into consideration, this play is defiantly a HTBT. The reason being that "If in my judgment", there was no possibility of a DP continuing, then the OP would not be interference. Oh by the way, when in doubt, I side with the defense not the offense in this decision.

I read your entire post, what would make you think I hadn't. You still are arguing in the NCAA rule that "if a runner chooses not to slide, he may not interfere in any way with a fielder making a play or throw.", but you must add "and not make contact." And again, "Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule." from the NCAA book. Of course you HTBT, but you cannot choose to pass because there was no play.

BTW, I agreed with all of your post save the part I quoted and I disagreed with that part because it was incomplete not because it was wrong.

The NCAA FPSR is pretty clear, which is nice for us.

[mbyron]

tcarilli, you nailed the rule, which was easy since you posted it. And you're right to call attention to the fact FPSR violations do not require even the possibility of completing a subsequent play.

That said, it's an open question whether the contact in the OP warrants an FPSR violation. I know that the rule says "any contact," but for all you know, the fielder bumped into the runner. I say it's HTBT.

And although a subsequent play is not necessary for FPSR violations, a subsequent play or attempted play is the only guide to whether the contact "altered the play of the fielder."

This really isn't much of a debate: most of us think the question is whether or not there was INT; you think the question is whether or not to pass on the INT. Practically, it comes to the same thing.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbyron

And although a subsequent play is not necessary for FPSR violations, a subsequent play or attempted play is the only guide to whether the contact "altered the play of the fielder."

This really isn't much of a debate: most of us think the question is whether or not there was INT; you think the question is whether or not to pass on the INT. Practically, it comes to the same thing.

No it doesn't. If don't know what constitutes interference by the rule, you cannot know whether it has happened, knowing a rule has been violated and passing on its enforcement for the good of the game, is not the same as not knowing the violation has occurred.

If you want to use the altered the play clause, you must not have contact. If you have contact you cannot use the altered the play clause. The clauses are joined by an "or" not an "and." The difference is dramatic. If he goes toward the fielder with no contact being made and a play is made, now you have to judge whether there was interference. You really don't need to make a judgment if contact is made when the runner does not slide or avoid. The NCAA wants this rule to be called very tightly. This is made clear each year at the clinics. In fact, if the runner goes toward the fielder and the fielder has to adjust his arm angle, landing spot, foot placement, etc. that is interference because he has altered the play. This was all made clear at the clinic. If the runner slides in the direction of the fielder, the default is interference. That is, you really have to judge not that interference took place, but that no interference has taken place (sort of a Napoleonic code-guilty until proven innocent as apposed to common law tradition - innocent until proven guilty. The FSRP has been an ongoing theme at the NCAA clinics this century especially the last two years with the changes. The NCAA is so interested in this rule that recruited a team to make a video where the poor middle infielder gets repeatedly beat up to show violations and non-violations of the rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No it doesn't. If don't know what constitutes interference by the rule, you cannot know whether it has happened, knowing a rule has been violated and passing on its enforcement for the good of the game, is not the same as not knowing the violation has occurred.

You don't seem to know what "practically" means. It means, in practice: if you decide to pass on calling the INT, and I decide that the contact was not INT, then neither of us IN PRACTICE will call anyone out for INT on this play.

If you're going to judge that even the slightest brush of uniforms constitutes INT, then I'd say you're the one who doesn't know what constitutes INT. If not, then you agree with me that not all contact constitutes INT.

As for the rest of your post, I'm glad you agree with me that a continuing play is the only way to judge whether the runner altered the play.

[charliej47]

We all make judgement calls and we all use selective enforcement of the rules. A batter says something and we ignore it because he is mad at himself. A runner takes his helmet off in relaxed play and re ignore it. I was always taught to know the letter of the law and to enforce the rules as fairly as possible. "If in my judgement, the runner made contact to hurt the fielder or to try to break up a play, I would have called interference!" I call obstruction and interference more often than anyone in my assoc. I study the BRD, the J/R, the individual rule books and use the forums. I don't claim to know it all and I still make mistakes.

[greymule]

here is the first paragraph of the rule from the NCAA rule book 8-4

Thank you. I don't have an NCAA book, so I'm interested to know that NCAA has a FPSR similar to Fed's. And as I, and virtually everyone else on this board, have known for years, the illegal contact defined in the FPSR does not require a possible play.

However, these are apples and oranges. Garden variety INT does require at least the possibility of a play. And there is no way that the bump in the OP qualifies under the FPSR except—maybe—in an ultra-literal reading of the rule. I cannot imagine that the rules-makers had anything like that bump in mind when they framed the FPSR.

If we applied ultra-literal interpretations to the rest of the book, we could really have some fun.

Consider also the timing in the OP. The fielder makes no attempt at further play, and the runner slows down. The play is over. A subsequent slight bump is a violation of no rule, even the FPSR interpreted broadly.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by greymule

here is the first paragraph of the rule from the NCAA rule book 8-4 Consider also the timing in the OP. The fielder makes no attempt at further play, and the runner slows down. The play is over. A subsequent slight bump is a violation of no rule, even the FPSR interpreted broadly.

I'll try one last time. My concern is not with garden variety interference or the judgment of interference. My concern is that multiple posters wrote that this was not interference because there was play. You cannot use that as a reason when the FPSR is in effect. Every other type of interference requires an actual or impending play. If your rule that FPSR interference cannot be called in the OP because there was no play, you are wrong. If your rule that no interference took place for another reason, that is fine. I'm not going to argue about whether there was interference on this play; what I am arguing is that those who believe that the enforcement of the FPSR requires an actual or impending subsequent are wrong.

[ODJ]

By rule, it's INT. By practice, it's damn hard to call it. HTBT.

I'd like to know why the PU thought it was his call.

Just as in basketball, not all contact is a foul.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by ODJ

I'd like to know why the PU thought it was his call.

Because it is.

[dash_riprock]

It is anyone's call, but Tony - would you call it (as described in this particular OP) from 75 feet away if your partner was right on top of it and took a pass?