The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   OBR Interference? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/58351-obr-interference.html)

johnnyg08 Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:28pm

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

kopan99 Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:30pm

Play on

UmpJM Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:34pm

johnny,

E4 (throw).

JM

Matt Thu Jun 10, 2010 01:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681169)
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

Jack ****. Unless he did something intentional, such as if the helmet was in his hand flagging down the ball.

ozzy6900 Thu Jun 10, 2010 06:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681169)
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

Why do you think there needs to be a call?

jicecone Thu Jun 10, 2010 07:19am

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??????????

MD Longhorn Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681169)
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

I have no call in any rule set (including any softball rule set.) Why would anyone think differently ... you can't get outs by beaning the runner.

MD Longhorn Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) (Post 681171)
johnny,

E4 (throw).

JM

I know you were being funny, but this is not true unless BR makes it to 2nd. No error can be charge on an attempted/failed DP if 1 out is made, unless someone gets an extra base.

johnnyg08 Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900 (Post 681187)
Why do you think there needs to be a call?

That was my point.

SanDiegoSteve Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:52am

Come On Down!!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681218)
That was my point.

Oh, it's a game show!!!

MD Longhorn Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681218)
That was my point.

Why the post then?

johnnyg08 Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:03am

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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681232)
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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 07:38pm

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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 681403)
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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:33pm

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

UmpJM Thu Jun 10, 2010 08:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg08 (Post 681413)
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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 09:47pm

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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:02pm

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 Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:05pm

JM, how many times have you seen it?

SanDiegoSteve Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:54pm

Don't know about John but me, never that I can recall. If I did I wouldn't have called interference.

jicecone Fri Jun 11, 2010 07:15am

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.

bob jenkins Fri Jun 11, 2010 08:18am

"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 Fri Jun 11, 2010 08:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 681461)
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 Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 681461)
"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. :mad:

Steven Tyler Fri Jun 11, 2010 02:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 681461)
"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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1