fpsr

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

The "veering away" is an act. It's an act that cannot be anticipated by the fielder, and if it takes the runner into the path of a thrown ball, it should be called as INT.

Continuing upright (or legally sliding) directly toward 2b after being forced out should not be.

This I learned on this forum (from Irish ).

Please let me know if this conflicts with NCAA, 'cause I wanna get it right (in my 2nd year there).

Sort of, and we have been down this road a lot.

There is a USA (Oct 2018 - on line) and NCAA (March 2019 - arbiter training tape) clarification of this play. I won't repeat them here because their words are very much their own.

My take: It is never "never" (Mike's side) or "always" (my former side). There are grey areas and you need to officiate and apply the definitions and appropriate rules. BTW - veering off can be a form of int and can also NOT be a form of int; staying in the base path CAN be a form of int and also can NOT be a form of int.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

staying in the base path CAN be a form of int and also can NOT be a form of int.

Staying on one's running route to a base should, in itself, never be an act of INT. Doing something different could be.

USA's interp from 2007 or 2009 NUIC clinic offered a sample play were simply being hit while running to 2B was not INT. Their counter-example was a just retired runner falling to the ground and getting back up and getting hit by the throw was as that was an act independent of simply attempting to advance.

It is the same philosophy for a batter interfering with a catcher's throw to 3B. If the batter stays where s/he belongs it is not INT if hit be a throw from the C. This had been, and still is, the philosophy for decades. If the batter is restricted to that certain spot, the catcher knows where s/he needs to make the throw. Why in the world would the same philosophy not apply on the base paths?

Have NCAA & NFHS deemed these players and coaches simply not smart enough to understand something so logical my dog can understand it?

[CecilOne]

woof, woof

[BretMan]

Seeing eye dog?

[Manny A]

It isn't just NFHS and NCAA softball that expect the runner coming into second base on the front end of a DP to not go into the base standing up. This is simply part of the Force Play Slide Rule that exists in NFHS and NCAA baseball.

Yes, I know FSPR doesn't exist in softball. I'm just pointing out that NFHS and NCAA softball aren't the "rogue" organizations some make them out to be. There is consistency amongst at least these four sanctions in the expectation that a retired runner has no business going straight into a forced-to base standing up as the fielder attempts to turn the DP.

I don't know if this exists in MLB, but you never see a runner from first base going into second base standing up on the front end of a DP. They always either slide at the bag, slide well short of the bag, or veer away. Maybe they do this for self-preservation purposes more so than anything else.

Curious if other softball sanctions (e.g., USSSA, NSA, etc.) say anything about this.

[IRISHMAFIA]

And what happens when the runner in fear of being called for INT slides early and is not ruled out on the force?