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.

[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.

[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.

[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.