OBR Interference?

[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

[jicecone]

Bob, the Hopkins interp was 2007.

BRD 2009 goes on to say "that the 2007 Interp seems to indicate that a runner who is more than halfway had better hit the dirt."

Such as the original play states:

"Ground ball to F6 who flips the ball to F4 for a force out at 2B, R1 is a little over 1/2 way to 2B when the thrown ball to F3 strikes R1 in the helmet."

Not sure either what Fed really wants but, just thought I would follow up on my original response.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

I've seen that, and I believe that Carl's interp is "activisit" - by which I mean he extends the published interp beyond it's intended bounds.

It is clear that a runner who is less than halfway is not subject to the FPSR, but it is not clear that crossing halfway makes the runner subject to the FPSR.

But, as I said, I don't really know how FED wants it called. I'm pretty comfortable calling it the way I do, and I don't catch much flack about it.

JM

[johnnyg08]

JM, how many times have you seen it?