Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes -- I could have phrased it better.

But, if R1 stays standing up into second, but there is no contact and no other overt action and as a result F4 needs to (a) double clutch, (b) move out of the way, (c) can't make a throw, (d) the throw hits R1 who is on or almost to the base ... Is it a FPSR violation?

Certainly some have opined that it is NOT a violation because "the runner is never required to slide."

Well, what's your opinion? Although the runner is not required to slide, he IS required to avoid affecting the play, especially if he's out. If you're suggesting that (a)-(d) above ARE violations of FPSR because in them the (retired) runner affects the play, then I'm inclined to agree.

Now if the defense screws up the out at 2B, I guess I'm inclined to give R1 a little more slack...

[PeteBooth]

In the OP AS PRESENTED the defense screwed-up

From the OP

Bases loaded, one out. Grounder to F4 who relays to F6 to start the DP. As F6 is coming across the bag, he catches the throw which is a little behind him. After he has made the force and is transferring to throw to first, he contacts R1, who did not slide, but also did nothing intentional - merely ran straight to the base and did not overrun the base. As a result of the contact, the ball comes loose and no throw was made to first.

The reason why F6 contacted R1 is because the THROW caused him to. Also, on a DP F6 does NOT transfer the ball, the touch of the base and throw to first are in a single motion.

What happened here is that F6 had to glove the ball behind him. By gloving the ball from behind he could not execute a fluid touch of the bag and throw to first as he would if the throw was where it should have been.

Without being there and any further info in the OP we had a BAD throw and that BAD throw is what caused the contact NOT the action of the runner.

Should the runner have slid?

IMO, yes because if the throw was "on taget" and R1 was that close to second base standing up he would most likely be called for interference, but in this case the throw was bad and generally speaking we do not reward a team when they err.

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Well, what's your opinion? Although the runner is not required to slide, he IS required to avoid affecting the play, especially if he's out. If you're suggesting that (a)-(d) above ARE violations of FPSR because in them the (retired) runner affects the play, then I'm inclined to agree.

Now if the defense screws up the out at 2B, I guess I'm inclined to give R1 a little more slack...

That's what I'd have, and what I THINK the intent of the rule is, but other, equally serious students of the rules disagree. I think someone even once quoted Kyle McNeely to that effect (but I could be mis-remembering the situation).

I do think FED could make it more clear -- but they also might screw it up (again, IMO) as they did the obstrcution rule change.

[sri8527]

i agree this is a HTBT situation, but in my humble opinion if the runner was on the infield side of second base, where he could still step on the bag, and the throw from F4 brings F6 to him, i have nothing. with the throw coming from behind him, the runner can only react to F6. now if the ball was hit to F6, and the whole play is developing in front of R1, he gets much less leeway.

steve

[scarolinablue]

Well, gee, maybe I did get it right after all....