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.

tjones1 and SanDiegoSteve

Started surfing the net and found this for both of you.

The article with the term "obstruction" was written by staff reporter Todd Zolecki. This may not be the article you were referring to though. Go to http://www.philly.com/philly/sports

Scroll down to the writer Todd Zolecki's picture on the left. Click on "Guess theres no sweep. The first part that is underlined in the article "The Phillies lost last night.... should be clicked on---then go to the end of the article, "Howard scored, but wait, umpires ruled obstruction on Shane Victorino".

I do not know if this was on a back page or the front page of the Inquirer or if Todd also wrote another article on another page but changed the wording or something. Anyway tjones1 did see a Philly reporter use the word obstruction. Hope this helps.

I'm new. FPSR? Someone please let me know it stands for. Have enjoyed reading everyone's opinion of the play.

FPSR = Force Play Slide Rule.

It's an NCAA and NFHS rule.



Tim.

Did Jim Joyce actually call interference on the original play? It would seem that if he did, he would have immediately called interference and then time and then pointed at first base and called the batter runner out and then told each runner to go back to their original base. There would have been no need for the Milwaukee manager to come out and ask about the play or where the runners should be placed. Charlie might have come out but not Phil.

Or, did Jim Joyce not see the interference (hip action) because he was positioned on the 3rd base side of 2nd base, and when the Milwaukee manager inquired, he asked Fielding Culbreth if he had a better view, looking right down the basepath from the 2nd base side? Then interference was called and the runners called back.

This would be much like the old play (Yankes, Dodgers) from the dark ages on Reggie Jackson years ago, where Frank Pulli asked Joe Brinkman if Reggie intentionally stuck out his hip to deflect the ball or was he just off balance because of the play, since Joe had a clearer view right down the line whereas Pulli was back behind 1st base.

Anyway, in the post-game conference after the game, Charlie said Jimmy Williams told him to protest. Charlie asked him if he knew the rule about the placement of runners on the interference. Jimmy said no, so Charlie said he felt he should just leave well enough alone, since he didn't know either.

So, Jimmy Williams (who's older than dirt and a waiter at the last supper) would have protested just to protest, just to make himself look good to the Phillie fans and front office back home and try to cover his backside. He would have protested without ever going to the trouble to learn the rules himself (come on he's had since the last supper), so he would know when to protest and when not to protest. And you want to know why some poster's call them rats. Need I say more?

Tim_C Help us out here on the play, cause I am just guessing Jim Joyce is in your neck of the woods and is a darn good umpire or he would not be working the 5th and deciding game (if needed) on the plate. Maybe he'll get the WS also.

He called interference when it happened--he might not have been thinking of the other runners.

A roll block is one kind of illegal slide, and involves a player touching the ground with something other than the soles of his shoes. Whether it was interference or not, it was clearly not a roll block.

Whether it was interference or not, MLBUM 6.3 provides no guidance on this play.

I'm not making this stuff up.

Re-read the definition in the interp:

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.

Whether you like it or not, the move met the criteria.

The definition suggests that the player makes contact with the ground after contacting the fielder. That does not happen when a player merely runs into a fielder.

You can't have a roll block without a roll.

Whether you like it or not, the move fails to meet the criteria.

The first two examples in 6.3 don't meet that (literal) criteria, yet are still considered interference. The runner in those also never slides or contacts the ground.

It was interference. Vittorino had no intention of gaining second base, only in contacting the fielder.

It was called immediately, not later.

The umpires convened to make sure that they were ruling properly in returning both runners.

They got the call right.

The End.

What about the guys throughout the season that had no intention of gaining 2B (knowing that they were out already) but while sliding within or sometimes not within a reach of second base tried to take out F4 or F6. I've seen no calls on those during the season. Has something changed or is the lack of a slide make it different?

Under pure OBR, i'm confused as to why this is interference. I thought a slide was not required... :confused::confused:


Devil's advocate:

Why is a similar (more malicious) play at home plate with collisions with the catcher not called interference? They obviously are not trying to reach the base in that instance.

It wasn't the lack of a slide, it was the deliberate contact he made with intent to prevent the double play. I missed it initially during live play, on the link you can see it clearly.

As for part 2, when the catcher is trying to block the plate as in MLB, do you really think he is trying for a DP??

It's like pornography. I'll know it when I see it (Which on this site is about once a week! :eek: ).

As for plays at the plate, the runner is still trying to touch the plate and score the run when he is trying to knock the catcher on his butt and dislodge the ball. The difference is that he doesn't need to gain home plate and stay there like he does at second base. If Vittorino would have came in standing up on the bag and stayed there, I don't think Joyce would have banged him for INT. But he totally kept going past the base (without ever touching it, no less) with no intention of trying to acquire a base that requires acquisition. Home plate only needs to be touched.

Joyce called INT...in the replay you can see him pointing...they turned the double play anyway so in his mind the play was over...I too, was surprised to have to have the mgr come out to have them pull the run off the board...and once again, the announcers make it difficult for the rest of us by telling the viewing audience that "the runner has to slide" I can't wait until I have to deal with that one again this coming spring.

Just like the FPSR IMO, the call the other night is not consistent.

In the Cubs / Dodgers series, Derek Lee slid into second base on the front end of a DP. Lee actually had his hand raised in the air which F4/F6 (can't remember) hit when throwing to first base.

Nothing was called.

The bottom line is this: It is a judgement call and just like the FPSR IMO, you will not see it called consistently from game to game.

Pete Booth

You are supposed to slide with your hands in the air. It is what instructors teach. It is a fundamental that helps in several ways. It is rare that a runner's hand gets hit like Lee's.

Robin Yount is the Brewers bench coach. He knows baseball better than anyone; including the six major league umpires and the manager he told to talk to them.

I had to wait over an hour for a shuttle after the game. Perhaps Robin could've given us a ride to State Fair Park and/or made us something to eat/drink while we waited.