OBR Interference?

[bob jenkins]

"If R1 is less than halfway, then the play is legal" is NOT the same logically as "If the runner is more than halfway, then the play is illegal."

The FPSR is to protect the fielder. If the runner isn't "close" (a loose term, I admit) to the fielder / bag, then the FPSR shouldn't apply.

I agree with CoachJM in his comment about Carl (there are other examples in BRD) and in how to enforce it, should I ever see it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the runner isn't "close" (a loose term, I admit) to the fielder / bag

To me, "close" is not as ambiguous in this case as one might think. Basically, if you're close enough to slide and actually make it to the bag, you must slide. You can't force runners to slide, say, 10 feet out - because they can't slide to the bag from there.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"If R1 is less than halfway, then the play is legal" is NOT the same logically as "If the runner is more than halfway, then the play is illegal."

The FPSR is to protect the fielder. If the runner isn't "close" (a loose term, I admit) to the fielder / bag, then the FPSR shouldn't apply.

I agree with CoachJM in his comment about Carl (there are other examples in BRD) and in how to enforce it, should I ever see it.

I too agree with UmpJM, but I don't like any part of the FED ruling, even under JM's interp.

The FPSR clearly states that runners do not have to slide. And in general it's not interference to be hit by a throw (when that's all that happens). So why is it INT if the runner chooses not to slide and gets hit by a throw, just because he is closer to a base than X feet? Doesn't add up.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"If R1 is less than halfway, then the play is legal" is NOT the same logically as "If the runner is more than halfway, then the play is illegal."

The FPSR is to protect the fielder. If the runner isn't "close" (a loose term, I admit) to the fielder / bag, then the FPSR shouldn't apply.

I agree with CoachJM in his comment about Carl (there are other examples in BRD) and in how to enforce it, should I ever see it.

bob,

I was going to post along the lines of what said you said yesterday, but didn't have time to do so.

The same thing was raised in one of our meeting two years ago. The person doing the explaining goes to Indianapolis ever year, does the state test and is our long time assignor/secretary.

So here goes. If a runner is less than 1/2 way to the base when hit by a thrown ball and does nothing intentional, there is no interference. If a runner is more than 1/2 way to the base and is hit with a thrown ball regardless even if he does nothing intentional, interference should be called because the runner has had time to decide what they should do to get out of the way of the throw.

It sounds like this explanation is along the lines with the interp of Rumble and Hopkins.