Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?

[bob jenkins]

Why is there both 8-4-2b and 8-4-2f?

Why does 8-4-2b contain the "on a force, does not slide in a direct line.."? That's already included in the definition of illegal slide.

Does the phrase "a runner is never required to slide" mean that "a runner who doesn't slide" is always legal?

Why was the case play where R1 is in the basepath but is hit by a throw from F4/6 toward first removed? The case ruled the play legal, but R1 was "less than 1/2 way to second." Is the distance important?

I've often found this whole section of the rule confusing -- and we've had these same discussions since the discovery of the interwebs. Still, no clarification from FED.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Does the phrase "a runner is never required to slide" mean that "a runner who doesn't slide" is always legal?

Your other questions make perfect sense, but I don't get this one. Why would it mean that? "A runner is never required to slide" means that a runner who does not slide has done nothing illegal just in not sliding.

There are lots of other rules he could violate, though, and so not sliding can't guarantee a legal play (for instance: he could interfere in some way that doesn't involve an illegal slide).

[PeteBooth]

The OP is not CLEARLY a FPSR violation. It is not your typical FPSR violation.

Read Bob Jenkins response.

FED used to have a case play on a similar situation and the ruling was LEGAL. The Case play has since been removed.

Why!

Most likely it caused controversey in some part of the country or it was simply too vague or UNCLEAR to keep in the case book.

I am with Ozzy on this. Definitely a HTBT scenario but IMO the most important part of the OP

The throw was BAD, Fielder had to reach back for the ball.

Right there could be the reason why there was contact. The fielder went to field the errant throw and contacted R1.

Generally speaking in all major rule codes we do not reward the team that errs.

Now if it was a GOOD quality throw and R1 who did not slide was almost at the base path and contacted the fielder, then I would invoke the FPSR.


Not saying it wasn't a FPSR violation; simply pointing out that it is not CLEAR and IMO something that FED needs to clarify.

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your other questions make perfect sense, but I don't get this one. Why would it mean that? "A runner is never required to slide" means that a runner who does not slide has done nothing illegal just in not sliding.

There are lots of other rules he could violate, though, and so not sliding can't guarantee a legal play (for instance: he could interfere in some way that doesn't involve an illegal slide).

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."

[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

[Publius]

I opined many years ago that "FPSR" is a misnomer that causes undue confusion. "Force-play baserunning rule" is what it really is.

If a runner doesn't slide, I just watch to see if he moves in a direction away from the fielder. If he does, I generally don't care if "interference" occurs because the fielder followed him--I let it go without calling a violation because I don't think it is one.

Infielders can and do move in whatever direction is required to cause contact with the runner. Have you ever seen F6 several times let his momentum carry him through the bag when taking a throw from F4, and then on the occasion when R1 veers off toward the infield side of the bag on a FP, F6 decide he's going to stop on the bag, then push off in the direction of the runner when making the relay?

In the OP, he stayed on his feet, went straight to the bag and altered the play AT THE BAG. That's interference. If he wants to go straight in, he must slide (note qualifier). While he never "must slide", if he chooses not to, he MUST move in a direction away from the fielder to avoid being at risk of an interference call. He didn't do that here. If he DID do that (either sliding or on his feet), and contact or alteration occurred because the fielder followed him, I let it go.

In Jenkins' 11:47 post, I'd call a violation in all four instances. I don't think any of it is black and white, though.

[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....