![]() |
Is inadvertant contact on a force still interference?
Sitch: I'm BU in the "C". 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.
As my partner nor I saw anything intentional in the runner's actions, and he did nothing illegal, he did not call interference and get the DP. Defensive coach wants the DP, as would have ended the game. Partner and I get together, and we agree there was nothing intentional and we played on. Am I overthinking this now...does the fact he is now a retired runner negate the fact that it was incidental contact, and since the contact did alter the play, we should have gotten the DP? Again, he did nothing illegal, but ran straight to the base without overrunning the base. The two runs that scored tied the game. Defensive team ended up winning the game in B7 on a wild throw from the pitcher to the catcher on a bases-loaded dribbler, trying for the force at home. |
scarolinablue,
Depends on the rule code. Under OBR rules, that sounds like "nothing" (at least as I'm picturing it). Under FED rules, this is clearly an FPSR violation and both the R1 and the BR would be out. JM |
Where is the "clear" FPSR violation? The runner is not required to slide, he did not overrun the base and he did not intentionally interfere. The FPSR requires illegal contact and/or altering of the play to be enforced. I think you got it right.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have a FPSR in NCAA and FED
|
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. |
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.
|
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Nice work, UmpJM
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.
|
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! |
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
dash,
I have an unfortunate tendency towards sarcasm which I am not always successful in keeping "in check". :o JM |
Quote:
I also accept sarcasm & criticism from one who has "been around the bases" almost as many times as I have.... so to speak. |
Quote:
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. |
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: Quote:
JM |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
Now if the defense screws up the out at 2B, I guess I'm inclined to give R1 a little more slack... |
Quote:
From the OP Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Well, gee, maybe I did get it right after all....:D
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23am. |