force play slide rule?

[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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I really do no what practically means. I don't disagree that in practice we get to the same place. But, I do know that the ends don't justify the means.