force play slide rule?
 

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.

Based on what you wrote, I wouldn't have anything.

If there was no throw to 1st, then why is the PU calling anything here. You stayed with the play and elected not to call anything. PU should have kept quiet unless asked by you for help. And even then, this would still be your call to make, and not PU's.

I disagree: any umpire can call interference on this play.

I agree, though, that the OP is not interference, since there was no play on BR. Correct procedure would have been to huddle with partner, explain your view, and ask him to change his call.

This is wrong, the existence or nonexistence of a play does not matter.

Unfortunately, by rule, you have interference here. Whether you should pass on it or not is another matter all together.

Understand for those of who believe that since there was no play there was no interference, you are wrong. Given that requiring that there be a play to enforce the rule would give R1 an opportunity to wreck middle infielders if he were sure that the middle infielder would or could not make a play at first.

If I'm the BU right there looking at the action, and the PU is several feet away, I am going to take that call. It's right in front of me. If the PU has some info for me, fine, but I think in this instance the call still belongs to the BU as there was no action that would draw his attention away.

That's not my point. My point is that you are wrong, by rule, when you indicate that there is no interference because there is no play.

From tcarilli's post

A.R.—If contact occurs on top of the base as a result of a “pop-up” slide, this contact is legal.

c. Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:
(1) The runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder (with or without contact);
(2) The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with or alters the play of a fielder;
(3) The runner’s raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder’s knee when in a standing position;
(4) The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or
(5) The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the
fielder makes no attempt to throw to complete a play.

From OP
F4 is standing on the back of the bag

Based on the OP I don't think any of the above 5 conditions were met.
According to OP contact was made on top of the base, though it wasn't a pop up slide I think the principle is intact.

#5 is the only possible condition that could pertain to the OP, but since contact was made on top of the bag I don't think it was illegal contact.

He violated the rule. That is my point. If you want to discuss whether we should pass on enforcing it in this case, we can do that. My primary problem with the original answers is that they claimed no play no interference; and that ain't right.

i agree, the only possible violation is #5, but is it ignored since the fielder was on the base.

i called nothing, b/c the fielder was partially on the base and the contact was so minimal and unintentional and it was obvious it was not altering the play in any way.

i agree that either ump can make this call, but since i was staying with the play and not turning to follow a double play, i'd say that primary responsibility for this call was mine. i have to commend my partner for staying with the play, but maybe he was looking to hard to get something on this play.

fyi - the coach didn't say a word. i guess he felt his kid was stupid for not sliding or avoiding.

This statement doesn't jive with the 5 conditions stated later in the rule.

For me it's judgement and not an absolute.

By rule R1 can legally slide over top of the base and make contact legally. He can also do a pop up slide and if not malicious make pretty strong contact over the base and be legal.

So same sitch as OP but R1 makes legal but hard slide over bag takes out the legs of F4 and you got nothing. But you're saying incidental contact in the very same spot above the base shoulder to shoulder and much less dangerous for F4 would be a FPSR violation?

Without arguing the letter of the law, I think intent of the law needs to be taken into consideration and good judgement on part of the arbiters of the game needs to be excersized.

If this was your reason for not calling interference you got it wrong.

You said the coach said nothing. That is because he did not slide. If you do not slide you must avoid.

All calls of interference are judgment, so the judgment angle is chimera. The rule is clear, if you don't slide or avoid and you make contact or alter the play, you are guilty of interference. So in all the scenarios you list as more dangerous are not relevant to this discussion because the runner did not violate the rule. Furthermore, I did not indicate in any way, shape, or form that I believed this violation to be more or, for that matter, less dangerous than the other scenarios that you give. The intent of the law need not be inferred here, we know it because it is written down. He didn't slide or avoid and he made contact a clear violation of the rule. The runner very easily could have avoided putting the umpire in a jackpot by sliding, he chose not to so he created the problem. And as stated above, the coach said nothing.

Also, in nearly every response I have given, I have included the caveat a discussion of whether to pass on such a call is fruitful, but the runner has committed interference in this scenario. I think an interference call here is a much easier sale than a pass.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:) 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.

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.

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.

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.

Because it is.

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?

Don't know. Its hard to speculate. I have done it, however. On this particular one as described its way to HTBT to commit. That's the problem with describing plays in these forums. Recall, though, the OP told us that there was no beef from the offensive coach after the call. So, I might.

Interesting Situation: A question
 

Tony,

I am confused, under what set of mechanics does the PU have the ability to rule on INT at 2B when the PU has no responsibility at 1B for a play?

Yes, the PU has the FPSR violation if the PU has to follow the ball to 1B. That is obvious. But I am not understanding why the PU would overrule his partner on a play where BU has responsibility to make the call? If that is a new NCAA practice, great, I can sure fix a lot of calls my partner misses!

But if you and I are calling a game, I'm the BU and I don't call a FPSR on a force play at 2B when there is no play at 1B, and you do, we will have a post-game discussion, and certainly one right there.

jk, I was always told that the mechanics for INT are: wherever you are, if you see it, call it. That said, if I were PU and my BU were watching things unfold at 2B, staying with the play there because there was no play at 1B, I would hesitate before making an interference call.

If he didn't make the call, I would. Then time would be out, we'd get together to discuss it, and if he had info that would lead me to change my call I'd change it. But it's generally harder to huddle and ADD an interference call than it is to huddle and remove one (like the "call on the field" in football, maybe).

The D-coach might not like it when I change my call, but if I do change it I'll have a good reason to tell him. (He still won't like it, of course.)

CCA

I just dont see what all the hubbub is about..

Ya know....Sometimes Ya Just Gotta Umpire...
These kinds of calls are the ones you have to have the balls to make. Maybe F4 didnt throw because the runner came in standing up. I know its a HTBT , but I got INT. He didnt slide, made contact, and it appears, in my judgement he altered the play.

Which conversation would make more sense:

Def coach: " Uhh coach, I didnt have FPSR there, because in my opinion your fielder didnt have a shot at first. I know the runner didnt slide, I know he went in standing up, and I did have contact"...but

Or

Off Coach: " Skip, I got FPSR. He went in standing up and made contact, and in my judgement altered the play"....

See, everyone sees the same thing out there at the bag. Its what we see as umpires that counts. Off coach sees it as maybe incidental, or not enough there. Def coach see it as INT. I think its best to call here on the side that didnt do what they were supposed to.

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.


I have been guilty, on this forum, of taking the letter of the law to an extreme, either out of principle or to promote debate, so I know from whence you are coming.
In this case the letter of the law is insuffecient and leaves much to the judgement ofthe umpire to make a fair call. The mere presence of any contact in this situation should not be the only criteria.

IMO there is a big difference between saying "yes that is a FPSR violation but I'm overlooking it" and "no violation"

I'm pretty sure that was the point I was trying to make all along. You must know that in the NCAA FPSR the number of outs or whether a play can be made or not are not reason to say FSPR has not been committed. So knowing what you are passing on for the good of the game is important.

Msa
 

Cool. Did you have a play at 1B?