force play slide rule?

[greymule]

It's true that with Fed's FPSR there doesn't have to be a play. Still, on the bump the OP describes, there's no way this is INT. Fed defines a legal slide, and the BRD says to call NCAA the same way. However, in calling INT on a sliding runner, Fed is stricter than NCAA (this is according to the BRD; I don't do NCAA baseball).

I don't know whether NCAA requires a play for INT, but OBR certainly does. Even with the recent "change" in that INT at 2B is actually being called, there has still been something resembling a play somewhere.

I'm glad I played long before all these INT rules came into being. Everything was called pretty much according to OBR, and—strange—there were no problems. Neither INT nor OBS was an issue at all. In fact, except for a couple of swings in which the bat hit F2's glove, I can't remember a single call of either INT or OBS.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by CO ump

The judgement angle is not chimera, it's absolutely necessary to make the correct call.

For the sake of debate:

R1, 2 outs
ground ball to F6. F4 takes the throw on the bag LF side. easy out.
While F4 is still on the bag with the ball R1 continues thru the bag on his way to his position in LF. As he passes F4 their forearms brush.
Is this a FPSR violation?

Is there a point where the letter of the law becomes so absurd you can't even consider it as being a violation overlooked?

Yes, but there are two outs, so there is not penalty. I will tell the runner to make sure he gets down or runs the other way.

Yes there is. Have you seen that in every single post I have made including this one that I said we can debate whether to pass on this interference or not? If not, I have repeated it again.

Also, my original point is and remains that those of you who argue that this is not interference because there is not a play are wrong; the rule is clear you do not have to have a play for their to be interference.

[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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by greymule

I don't know whether NCAA requires a play for INT, but OBR certainly does. Even with the recent "change" in that INT at 2B is actually being called, there has still been something resembling a play somewhere.

I quoted the rule, in the NCAA there need not be a play for interference to be called.

[greymule]

I quoted the rule

I see that you quoted the FPSR. Is that from the NCAA book?

the rule is clear you do not have to have a play for their to be interference.

That's true, at least in Fed, for a category of INT that is generated by illegal contact. But I don't see that the contact in the OP was illegal, or absent a play, even INT. How is it illegal contact?

In the zillions of discussions this forum has seen about INT at 2B, I've never heard the situation reduced to a simple "slide or avoid." There is much more to INT than that, including whether a play is possible. The way I see it, illegal contact is different from INT in that (1) you can have INT without illegal contact (which requires that a play be possible), and (2) illegal contact creates INT regardless of whether a play is possible. (OBR not included in this.)

Of course, if the runner goes into 2B standing up in an obvious effort to interfere rather than reach the base, I'd call INT (if there's a play remotely possible). However, simply running upright straight toward 2B—without sliding or veering—and getting hit by the ball is just tough luck for the defense.

[DG]

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.

What you describe here I would never call FPSR in FED game or otherwise

[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 greymule

I see that you quoted the FPSR. Is that from the NCAA book?

Yes. Let me try again, here is the first paragraph of the rule from the NCAA rule book 8-4

Force-Play-Slide Rule
SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players. This is a safety as well as an interference rule. Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule. This rule pertains to a force-play situation at any base, regardless of the number of outs.

As to the point that you must have a play to call interference as argued by at least two posters, it's hard to make it clearer than that, that is wrong.

Further,

8-4-a. On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended (see diagram).
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. Interference shall not be called.

It really is that simple in the NCAA book if you don't slide you must avoid contact with the fielder. If a runner does not slide and makes contact with the fielder, he has committed interference.

Again, I will state my caveat you cannot pass on interference because there was no play, as in the original post. That is that cannot be your reason for passing in this case, period.

[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.

[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.