Mlb fpsr?!?!
 

I was just watching the end of the Phillies v. Brewers game Saturday night, and I was wondering if anyone knew when MLB instituted the FPSR.

Somehow, that had escaped me.

JM

Caught that too. One of the announcers said it. Practically speaking, I guess in MLB he's right. I've seen much worse done on slides and it hasn't been called. The runner in this case could have slid to the right within reach of the base and taken Counsel's feet out and it would not have been int. He went in standing up crouched as he passed the base. I don't even know if I would have had int. in high school.

I was wondering that one myself?? I must have missed that update. In all honesty, I'm not sure how they got interference on the play at all. Obvously, it was the FPSR.

This is definitely interference, per 6.05(m). MLBUM 6.3 indicates that any intentional contact with a fielder attempting a double play that is not a legitimate attempt to advance and stay on a base is interference. Given that Victorino overran second like he was running to first, it is quite obvious that it was not an attempt to stay on the base.

Maybe this will help.


MLBUM 6.3

GUIDELINES:
In sliding to a base, the runner should be able to reach the base with his hand or foot.

A runner who, in the judgment of the umpire, contacts or attempts to make contact with a fielder with a slide or roll block that is not a bona fide effort to reach and stay on the base may be called out for interference and, when appropriate, a double play may be called.

Any definite change in direction by the runner to contact the fielder would be considered interference.

If a runner hits the dirt, slides, and rolls, it does not constitute a rolling block unless the runner leaves his feet and makes contact with the fielder before the runner slides on the ground. If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

This ought to clear it up
 

<h1 class="hl">Obstruction on DP costs Phillies a run</h1>
<h2 class="subHeadLite">Umps take away tally in ninth after Victorino's interference</h2>

What more can be said?

Joe in Missouri

Anthony DiComo is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


Obviously.

Funny how he interchanges interference and obstruction. :rolleyes:

But... say hey,... I love this town. :p

OH.... yeah, I missed that little kiss at the end of the play... what can I say, I was drinking a cold one and cooking dinner. I can agree with the call now.

Well, I could say the Phillies lost by three runs. :)

I really do not care anymore whether a writer or broadcaster uses the correct term to describe interference or obstruction.

I have read and reread this article several times, and I have yet to come across the word "obstruction" in any form or fashion. What article are you reading? The guy called it interference the entire article. Only Joe in Missouri called it obstruction, not the author of the article.

I was there. I'm surprised it took a manager coming out and a conference of six major league umpires to put the runners back.

Meaningless in the scheme of things. There were still two outs in the 9th and the Phils still needed 2 hits or a home run in that situation to tie the game. After the next batter grounded out weakly to the pitcher, the only thing affected was the final score.

My sense over the past couple years is that MLB is trying to clean up the action around 2nd base. Not every umpire seems to be on board with this project, which would explain why we see some inconsistency of enforcement.

I can't see that MLBUM 6.3 applies to this play, as it concerns illegal slides. Victorino did not slide.

Moreover, the Brewers completed the double play anyway, which suggests that the runner didn't hinder the fielder.

Still, if you're going to get INT, you've got to call it immediately -- not wait for the outcome of the play -- which the umpire did. Interesting call.

I don't know who was announcing the game on TV, but he kept up the fine tradition of his fellow broadcasters by telling us the runners had to return because they had not reached their advance base when the interference occurred.

Steve

It appears they have updated it from the time you read it and when I read it. The title had "obstruction" in it and the body did too.

I assume someone pointed this out to him after-the-fact.

slide or roll block

Doesn't have to be a slide - thats why it's "or"


If the initial contact is with the fielder instead of the ground for the purpose of breaking up a double play, it is a roll block.

Fits the bill.

Interference.