Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[scarolinablue]

It was after re-reading 8-4-2f that I started questioning the call. There was no attempt to avoid, but it was also a relatively close play on the force - not quite a banger, but they didn't have the runner by 5 steps, either. Maybe you HTBT, and maybe it could have been called either way. I see it in a bit of a gray area, and could defend either call.

Interested in more opinions, if there are any. Is there a gray area here? Or, if there was enough time to begin the transfer of the ball from the glove to the throwing hand, was there enough time to avoid? Would this be more like not sliding and letting the throw hit you - but that would be intentional, wouldn't it? This contact was clearly not intentional. Thanks.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

There was no attempt to avoid,

Since you were there, and you judged this, then, to me, the answer is clear--there was illegal contact per 8-4-2f. The rule is quite explicit that there must be an attempt to avoid or a legal slide.

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Is there a gray area here?

In the judgment, yes. In the rule, no.

[UmpJM]

scarolinablue,

In a FED game this is absolutely an FPSR violation, no "grey area" involved.

In leagues that play with an FPSR (FED, NCAA, American Legion) a "forced" runner has two options:

1. He can make a "legal slide" (there are some variations among codes as to what constitutes a "legal slide")

or

2. He can remain standing as long as he does not make contact with the pivot man OR alter the play.

In your sitch, the R1 chose not to slide and failed to avoid the pivot man AND altered the play. In a league with an FPSR, that IS "illegal contact", regardless of intent, and both the R1 and BR are out, the ball is dead, any other runners return to their TOP base.

JM

[dash_riprock]

The O/P said the fielder contacted the runner (not the other way around) because the throw was behind him. It is entirely plausible that the runner WAS trying to avoid contact, but a bad throw caused the fielder to contact the runner (who was standing on the base).

If this is "clearly" a FPSR violation, then fielders would be coached to find a way to contact the runner and get an automatic DP every time (and perhaps save a run).

HTBT for sure.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The O/P said the fielder contacted the runner (not the other way around) because the throw was behind him. It is entirely plausible that the runner WAS trying to avoid contact, but a bad throw caused the fielder to contact the runner (who was standing on the base).

If this is "clearly" a FPSR violation, then fielders would be coached to find a way to contact the runner and get an automatic DP every time (and perhaps save a run).

HTBT for sure.

Being that he said there was no attempt to avoid, that's all the info needed (well, that and that it was a force play.)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Matt

Being that he said there was no attempt to avoid, that's all the info needed (well, that and that it was a force play.)

He didn't say that.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

He didn't say that.

Read post 5.

[jicecone]

Not quite sure what you meant by "After he has made the force and is transferring to throw to first, he contacts R1."

This makes me question who contacted who?

If the runner by standing on the bag, caused F6 to alter the play then yes, I also have interference. However, if the fielder crossed the bag and ran into the runner that was trying to get out of the way , then I have nothing.

Also, from what I read, the runner may not have altered or interfered intentionally but, he did interfer and he did alter the play. Intent has nothing to do with it here.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Not quite sure what you meant by "After he has made the force and is transferring to throw to first, he contacts R1."

This makes me question who contacted who?

If the runner by standing on the bag, caused F6 to alter the play then yes, I also have interference. However, if the fielder crossed the bag and ran into the runner that was trying to get out of the way , then I have nothing.

Also, from what I read, the runner may not have altered or interfered intentionally but, he did interfer and he did alter the play. Intent has nothing to do with it here.

Which is where I say HTBT, perhaps. The runner was out by about a step and a half, but the throw was behind F6, so he had to reach behind to make the catch. As his momentum carried him across the bag, R1 and F6 made contact, causing the ball to be dropped by F6. It was obvious it was not intentional, but he also did not appear to be avoiding contact, either. He ran straight to the bag but did not overrun the bag.

After digesting this, I'd say we should have called the FPSR violation as outlined in 8-4-2f and rang up the DP. However, I also feel it would have been hard for R1 to avoid the contact unless he slid, of which he is not required. However, inadvertent or not, the rule should still apply and the violation penalized, since contact was not avoided and the play was altered by the retired runner.

We'll get 'em next time. Thanks for the input.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Which is where I say HTBT, perhaps. The runner was out by about a step and a half, but the throw was behind F6, so he had to reach behind to make the catch. As his momentum carried him across the bag, R1 and F6 made contact, causing the ball to be dropped by F6. It was obvious it was not intentional, but he also did not appear to be avoiding contact, either. He ran straight to the bag but did not overrun the bag.

After digesting this, I'd say we should have called the FPSR violation as outlined in 8-4-2f and rang up the DP. However, I also feel it would have been hard for R1 to avoid the contact unless he slid, of which he is not required. However, inadvertent or not, the rule should still apply and the violation penalized, since contact was not avoided and the play was altered by the retired runner.

We'll get 'em next time. Thanks for the input.

Keep in mind, he doesn't have to avoid contact--an attempt to avoid contact will suffice. As soon as F6 moves in the direction of R1, all R1 has to do is show that he is attempting to avoid F6--whether he succeeds is irrelevant.

[bossman72]

I have a FPSR in NCAA and FED

[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.

[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.

[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.