Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[ozzy6900]

You mean to tell me that if R1 attains 2nd and is standing there and F6 turns into him to make a throw, you guys want R1 to disappear? R1 has not done anything but stop on the base. Are you guys saying that R1 should have stepped off the bag to allow the throw, please enlighten me here!

I agree that this is really a HTBT but from the description, I do not have any obstruction.

[dash_riprock]

I'm with Ozzy. The intent of the rule is to prevent injuries to fielders caused by violent contact by approaching runners, not to grant cheap DPs. HTBT, but I don't think the D should be rewarded for a bad throw.

[UmpJM]

ozzy & dash,

I'm not sure what play you are talking about, because in the OP the R1 was RETIRED and there was no THROW from the pivot man as a direct result of the R1's FPSR interference. And Ozzy, it's INTERFERENCE, so I would agree there was no "obstruction".

I would agree with dash that INTENT of the FPSR is safety - however, the result is a significant change in the "balance of the game" in favor of the defense that occasionally will result in a "cheap" double play for the defense, even if no double play would be possible absent the FPSR violation.

Perhaps you guys have never actually read an FPSR rule, so I have posted the text of the NCAA FPSR rule so that you may.

Originally Posted by 2009 NCAA Rule Book

SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of all players. This is a safety and 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 think of this as kind of the "preamble" to the rule. It clearly supports Dash's assertion regarding safety - it also clearly mentions that it is an "interference" rule, establishes the principle that whether the defense had a realistic chance at a DP is irrelevant, and that it applies to ALL force plays.

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).

This clause establishes the "core" rule - if a runner is forced, he is not liable to be called for a FPSR violation as long as he slides "legally". In NCAA rules, this means in a direct line to the base and on the ground.

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.

This clause provides an "exception" to the "must slide" and "direct line" language in clause "a.". Namely, the forced runner also has the options of

1. sliding "away" from the base

or

2. remaining on his feet (i.e. "...or runs...")

as long as the path he follows results in no contact with the fielder and does not alter the play.

(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.

These provide additional clarification on what it means to "slide legally" in a "direct line" to the base.

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.

This clause clarifies the point that if and ONLY IF the runner SLIDES LEGALLY, the runner is not penalized for the contact under the FPSR rule.

So, how does this apply to the sitch originally posed in this thread.

We have a "forced" runner who chose not to slide (as is his prerogative), was retired, and did NOT run "away" from the fielder, resulting in contact and, as described, an "alteration" of the play.

This is de facto and de jure an FPSR violation resulting in the R1 and the BR being called out, any other runners return to their TOP base.

Now Dash raises the valid point that there is a HTBT element to the play. That is, if the pivot man goes "out of his way" to create contact by doing something unrelated to his attempt to complete the DP, I would certainly not rule an FPSR violation. But there was nothing in the description of the sitch that the pivot man did so.

Matt suggests that as long as the forced runner "tried" to avoid contact, he is absolved of liability. I disagree. He is only absolved of his liability if he legally slides. If he doesn't and there is contact which alters the play, even if the "cause" was a slightly off target throw, under the FPSR rule, he is still liable.

Dash and Ozzy seem to believe that it is perfectly legal for the forced runner to go into the base standing up. While in OBR that is certainly true, in codes with an FPSR if he does so he may not come into contact with the pivot man or alter the play.

Says so right in the rule.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Matt

Keep in mind, he doesn't have to avoid contact--an attempt to avoid contact will suffice.

Not true in FED or NCAA.

Edited to add:

I hadn't seen JM's well thought out and far more detailed post when I first responded to Matt.

Matt: Read the post preceding this one.

[scarolinablue]

To clarify, this was a FED game. I'm convinced now, thanks to the detail provided, that since the runner did not attempt to avoid, and since he was retired, there was a FPSR violation. Pretty simple. I was hung up on the fact it was not intentional contact, but in FED, that does not matter, if there is no attempt to avoid. Thanks again.

[ozzy6900]

My stand is simple. The runner may choose slide or not to slide. If he chooses to slide (in FED) he must make a legal slide as per FPSR. However, if the runner does not slide, you cannot enforce FPSR!

The runner may have been put on the front end of the DP, but (again HTBT) where was he? 20' away? 5' away? Did he have time to turn out (toward the outfield) or in (toward the infield)? The OP gives us no clue to any of these questions.

All the OP tells us is that the throw was not on target and F6 had to adjust. Right there you have a problem. Now you have a runner standing on the base and F6 turns into him. We cannot expect the runner to disappear nor can we expect the runner to suddenly flatten himself.

What you all seem to be trying to say is that you want to reward the defense for a lousy throw and for incidental contact with a runner (retired or otherwise). Not every contact requires punishment!

[dash_riprock]

JM - as always, a thorough and provocative response.

I have one question for you. If the runner beat the throw and chose not to slide, could you envision a situation where he would be required to vacate his base to attempt to avoid contact (and, consequently, become liable to be tagged out) in order to avoid a FPSR violation or INT?

Thanks.

[UmpJM]

dash,

Good question, and one I honestly haven't considered before.

I would say off the top of my head, that, no, I don't believe a runner who had reached his "forced to" base safely would ever be required to relinquish contact with the base in order to avoid an FPSR violation. But, if he came in "standing up" he could still be liable for a an FPSR violation if there is contact which alters the play, even if he "beat" the tag of the base.

I don't much care for the FPSR rule, but I do understand why it exists. Teenage boys have way too much testosterone and way too little common sense - not to mention an underdeveloped sense of their own vulnerability.

All of the research I have found suggests that injuries due to collisions in "sub professional" baseball are outnumbered by injuries due to sliding by an order of magnitude. So I wonder if the "safety" rationale isn't somewhat misguided.

In the end, it's really pretty simple. If you don't want to be liable for an FPSR violation, make a legal slide when you are forced and there is a possible play at the "forced to" base.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

ozzy & dash,

Perhaps you guys have never actually read an FPSR rule, so I have posted the text of the NCAA FPSR rule so that you may.

I would like to believe you didn't really mean that.

[UmpJM]

dash,

I have an unfortunate tendency towards sarcasm which I am not always successful in keeping "in check".

JM

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

dash,

I have an unfortunate tendency towards sarcasm which I am not always successful in keeping "in check".

JM

I understand your sarcasm as I am just as bad!
I also accept sarcasm & criticism from one who has "been around the bases" almost as many times as I have.... so to speak.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Not true in FED or NCAA.

Edited to add:

I hadn't seen JM's well thought out and far more detailed post when I first responded to Matt.

Matt: Read the post preceding this one.

FPSR (8-4-2b) says that it is illegal if a runner does not slide and causes illegal contact.

That means that it is possible for a runner not to slide, and still make legal contact, otherwise it would read: "...does not slide and causes contact."

The legality of not sliding, and merely attempting to avoid, is shown in 8-4-2f: "...fails to execute a legal slide, or does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base."

Pretty black-and-white to me: attempting to avoid contact is all it takes to be legal.

[UmpJM]

Matt,

The 8-4-2b language you cite has nothing to do with the FPSR and applies to ANY play in a FED game.

The FPSR requirements begin a little later with the phrase:

...or, on a force play...

Pretty black and white.

JM

[Matt]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Matt,

The 8-4-2b language you cite has nothing to do with the FPSR and applies to ANY play in a FED game.

The FPSR requirements begin a little later with the phrase:



Pretty black and white.

JM

Then tell me, in that text regarding a runner not being required to slide, where contact with a fielder is always illegal.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I understand your sarcasm as I am just as bad!
I also accept sarcasm & criticism from one who has "been around the bases" almost as many times as I have.... so to speak.

Do you live in a red light district?