Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[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