OBR Interference?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

That was my point.

Why the post then?

[johnnyg08]

I get questions about plays on occasion and many times people will debate my opinion on x,y,z play and I will check to see if others agree or not. Instead of talking about it locally I will bring them on here to get other thoughts.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I get questions about plays on occasion and many times people will debate my opinion on x,y,z play and I will check to see if others agree or not. Instead of talking about it locally I will bring them on here to get other thoughts.

A reasonable and smart idea if the questions are truly debatable. This one? If any of this "group" was an umpire, send them to remedial school or stop assigning them. Ugh.

[jicecone]

OK, I knew I had read this somewhere. This is Fed only.

The Usual suspects by Carl Childress, 2004 on pg 10 Play 11. " Ball smashed to F6 who flips to second. The throw to first nails R1 in the helmet. R1 is perhaps thirty feet from second base."

Answer on page 12, "Double play." It was based upon a Rumble ruling in the Fed News #1, March 1998. Rumble restructured the Force Play Slide Rule

BRD 2009, Section 328, "Interference By: Runner: Slide: Froce Play. Page 214.

Official Inter 242-328: Hopkins: On a force play a runner hit by a thrown ball between bases is NOT guilty of interference if he did not slide or [presumably] run well away from the fielder making the throw if he is in the baseline but "not even halfway to second: The runner cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path."

Conversly, well you make the call!!!!!!!!!!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

It was based upon a Rumble ruling in the Fed News #1, March 1998.

There's a later interp where this is wrong.

Left open by the interp is what happens if R1 is "close" to the base and hit by the throw while not sliding.

[johnnyg08]

7.09e comment has some stuff about that type of play in the OP

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

7.09e comment has some stuff about that type of play in the OP

It certainly does, for OBR. Pretty clearly states that it is not interference, absent an intentional act to interfere.

Fed is less clear.

I pretty much agree with Bob Jenkins, though I would state it differently. What is left unclear is how close does a forced runner need to be to his "forced to" base for the FPSR provisions to be in effect.

I have no idea what FED really "wants" in regard to the question.

I think I go with "close enough that he should be starting his slide". But I'm not sure that's right.

JM