force play slide rule?

[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.

[Emperor Ump]

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

[Huskerblue]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Huskerblue

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree, though, that the OP is not interference, since there was no play on BR.

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

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.
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.
(1) “On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and buttock on the ground before the base.
(2) “Directly into a base” means the runner’s entire body (feet, legs, trunk and arms) must stay in a straight line between the bases.
b. Contact with a fielder is legal and interference shall not be called if the runner makes a legal slide directly to the base and in the baseline extended (see diagram).
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.

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

The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players,

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.

[Huskerblue]

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Huskerblue

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.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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.

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by CO ump

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.

On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases...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.

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.

[ggk]

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.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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.

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by ggk

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.

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by CO ump

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.

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.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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. .

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?

[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.