![]() |
OBR Interference?
R1, 1 out.
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. What's your call? OBR, NCAA, FED |
Play on
|
johnny,
E4 (throw). JM |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I agree with the play for this scenario however, I am also aware of written material I have at home discussing interference on the runner. I think it is at the Fed level and possibly for a runner closer to the bag.
Possibly Amber knows more of the details?????????? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Come On Down!!!
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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!!!!!!!!!! |
Quote:
Left open by the interp is what happens if R1 is "close" to the base and hit by the throw while not sliding. |
7.09e comment has some stuff about that type of play in the OP
|
Quote:
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 |
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. |
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 |
JM, how many times have you seen it?
|
Don't know about John but me, never that I can recall. If I did I wouldn't have called interference.
|
First of all, I have only seen this once in a OBR game so, it was not realvant to this discussion. Also, I am not saying that I would call it as suggested unless really obvious that the runner was trying to interfer.
As far as what Carl writes, I believe he has offered interps of other notables and basis his statement on several of these that talk about "halfway, less than halfway, more than halfway." As already suggested, this happens so rarely it's probably time for me to shutup and move on. I guess the engineer in me is what wants to know as much history as possible, when coming to a decision on the field. Just sharing this. |
"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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. :mad: |
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11pm. |