Interference

[noumpere]

Tjhe rule says "does not legally slide". Well a runner who goes in standing up certainly didnt legally slide. It might be different if the rule said "slides illegally and makes contact or alters the play"

Case 8-4-2 Sitation W has an example of two out with no slide but its a more serious play but the concept still applies I think.

Are you saying "does not legally slide" means

1. "Must slide and do it legally"

-OR-

2. "If he slides, it must be a legal slide"

Which one are you saying?

Neither, I think. lol.

Its more like #1, but it also allows the runner to run away from the play.

[JaxRolo]

The play at second is a no brain'er...FPSR. If he does not get down, give up or get out of the way he is out and I WILL get a DP, Period.

Even if the DP is not possible absent the interference?

yes

[JaxRolo]

I don't think we ever determined if this is part of the FPSR or just a "normal INT call". Do we get two outs on this ? All I have read included this play on a document explaining the FPSR so I assume they are saying two outs.

I have 2 outs.

NFHS.arbitersports.com/Front/Rules/Book?rulebookid=a29b2652-f3b2-448e-b1b0-7fd13d98e94d&nodeid=824f6df9-3b2a-494a-82b2-aa74986405e6'>ART. 2 . . . A slide is illegal if:

a. the runner uses a rolling, cross-body or pop-up slide into the fielder, or

b. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position, or

c. the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder, or

d. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg, or

e. the runner tries to injure the fielder, or

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.NFHS.arbitersports.com/Front/Rules/Book?rulebookid=a29b2652-f3b2-448e-b1b0-7fd13d98e94d&nodeid=824f6df9-3b2a-494a-82b2-aa74986405e6'>

According to the Bolded part. (f.) we have 2 things.

1. If he doesn't slide it is an illegal slide.

2. If he doesn't slide and is in direct line then I don't care if he is 2ft or 30ft from the base. I have 2 outs

[Rich Ives]

8-4-2-b-2

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the

slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all

legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the

ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

[carolinablue]

8-4-2-b-2

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the

slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all

legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the

ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

That's what I'm talking about.

[JaxRolo]

8-4-2-b-2

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the

slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all

legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the

ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yes but on a Force if he doesn't slide and is in direct line then that IS an illegal slide.

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

[sdix00]

8-4-2-b-2

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the

slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all

legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the

ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yes but on a Force if he doesn't slide and is in direct line then that IS an illegal slide.

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

I do not agree that the rule is saying the runner must slide on a force play. I believe the rule is saying that IF the runner slides, it must be in a direct line.

The FPSR does only two things.

1. It adds a requirement to a legal slide that the runner slide on a direct line.

2. It adds an automatic out on the BR if the slide is illegal.

If the runner does not slide, 8-4-2b is N/A and therefore the automatic out on the BR is also N/A.

Failure to slide is not a violation. Failure to slide legally is a violation. If the runner does not slide, then it is impossible to slide illegally and impossible to violate 8-4-2b.

However, it is still possible to violate 8-4-2c, f. But these violations have a different penalty.

A runner is never required to slide. Ever.

[24sdad]

Great thread. I just ran it by the California rule interpreter, Ken Allen, and he said it is purely an umpire judgment call re INF and double play on B/R. All of the FPSR talk has nothing to do with the ruling as R1 never slid. If he slides, he must slide legally and not commit one or more of the various prohibitions. He did not.

Ken said, in the judgment of the umpire, if R1 had opportunity to veer off prior to the middle infielder's throw, call interference and grab two outs. I believe this would occur a majority of the time. However, for instance, if R1 was moving on the pitch and arrived at second just prior to the turn at second (10 - 15 feet away?), went in standing up (never required to slide) and did nothing to interfere with the middle infielder's play at second other than being in the way because he did what he was supposed to do (run directly from first to second), no interference.

Works for me. YMMV

[sdix00]

Great thread. I just ran it by the California rule interpreter, Ken Allen, and he said it is purely an umpire judgment call re INF and double play on B/R. All of the FPSR talk has nothing to do with the ruling as R1 never slid. If he slides, he must slide legally and not commit one or more of the various prohibitions. He did not.

Ken said, in the judgment of the umpire, if R1 had opportunity to veer off prior to the middle infielder's throw, call interference and grab two outs. I believe this would occur a majority of the time. However, for instance, if R1 was moving on the pitch and arrived at second just prior to the turn at second, went in standing up (never required to slide) and did nothing to interfere with the middle infielder's play at second other than being in the way because he did what he was supposed to do (run directly from first to second), no interference.

Works for me. YMMV

I agree with Kenny.

However, personally, I would not grab the second out on the BR if there was 0% chance of retiring him. Judgement. YMMV as always.

[grayhawk]

Great thread. I just ran it by the California rule interpreter, Ken Allen, and he said it is purely an umpire judgment call re INF and double play on B/R. All of the FPSR talk has nothing to do with the ruling as R1 never slid. If he slides, he must slide legally and not commit one or more of the various prohibitions. He did not.

Ken said, in the judgment of the umpire, if R1 had opportunity to veer off prior to the middle infielder's throw, call interference and grab two outs. I believe this would occur a majority of the time. However, for instance, if R1 was moving on the pitch and arrived at second just prior to the turn at second (10 - 15 feet away?), went in standing up (never required to slide) and did nothing to interfere with the middle infielder's play at second other than being in the way because he did what he was supposed to do (run directly from first to second), no interference.

Works for me. YMMV

Thanks for checking with Ken. I think what is being said here is that not veering off, when he had the opportunity to do so, is an intentional act. Since the interference was committed by a retired runner, then we are going to get an out on his teammate. No FPSR.

[Rich Ives]

8-4-2-b-2

2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the

slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all

legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the

ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yes but on a Force if he doesn't slide and is in direct line then that IS an illegal slide.

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

That means IF he slides it has to be on the ground in a direct line or it's a violation.

[jjlmac]

I may be off base here, but 8-4-2f . . ."as a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base." Seems this REQUIRES the runner or retired runner to avoid the the fielder whether the fielder is making a play on him or not.

I believe the two bolded sections above (the rule and your interp) are in conflict. If the runner is required to avoid "the fielder or the play", then by definition, the fielder is making a play on him.

Since the retired runner is required to avoid the fielder and play pursuant to 8-4-2f, he is now in violation of 8-4-2b, by "illegally" altering the play of the fielder. This, then calls for a double play pursuant to the Penalty section of 8-4-2.

If a fielder violates 8-4-2f, then he is in violation of 8-4-2f. In order to be in violation of 8-4-2b, he must violate 8-4-2b.

8-4-2b is exclusive to the slide. It articulates the manner in which a runner may legally slide. That's it. If a runner does not slide, then 8-4-2b is 100% not applicable.

SDix00: In regard to the bolded sections being in conflict, I am not sure that is the case. Why, by definition, would the play have to be being made on him? Why couldn't he be the retired runner and the play being made is the the throw to F-3 to retire the BR? The turn at second base is a play on R-1, but as soon as R-1 is retired, the play being executed by F-6 (or F-4) is on the BR, correct? The retired R-1 must now avoid the fielder or that play. R-1 has an affirmative duty to avoid the play.

As for my extension that this is a violation of 8-4-2b, I was right in my initial assessment of, "I may be off base here." You are correct, it applies only to the slide.

[sdix00]

I may be off base here, but 8-4-2f . . ."as a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or does not attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base." Seems this REQUIRES the runner or retired runner to avoid the the fielder whether the fielder is making a play on him or not.

I believe the two bolded sections above (the rule and your interp) are in conflict. If the runner is required to avoid "the fielder or the play", then by definition, the fielder is making a play on him.

Since the retired runner is required to avoid the fielder and play pursuant to 8-4-2f, he is now in violation of 8-4-2b, by "illegally" altering the play of the fielder. This, then calls for a double play pursuant to the Penalty section of 8-4-2.

If a fielder violates 8-4-2f, then he is in violation of 8-4-2f. In order to be in violation of 8-4-2b, he must violate 8-4-2b.

8-4-2b is exclusive to the slide. It articulates the manner in which a runner may legally slide. That's it. If a runner does not slide, then 8-4-2b is 100% not applicable.

SDix00: In regard to the bolded sections being in conflict, I am not sure that is the case. Why, by definition, would the play have to be being made on him? Why couldn't he be the retired runner and the play being made is the the throw to F-3 to retire the BR? The turn at second base is a play on R-1, but as soon as R-1 is retired, the play being executed by F-6 (or F-4) is on the BR, correct? The retired R-1 must now avoid the fielder or that play. R-1 has an affirmative duty to avoid the play.

As for my extension that this is a violation of 8-4-2b, I was right in my initial assessment of, "I may be off base here." You are correct, it applies only to the slide.

IF the fielder has retired R1, that doesn't mean the fielder is no longer in the act of making a play on him (R1).

If the fielder is in the act of making a play on him, then certain rules apply.

If the fielder is in the act of making a play on another runner, then other rules apply. e.g. 8-4-1h

My original point was that is is important to identify exactly which rule applies to the situation, because improperly applying a rule such as the FPSR, can lead to applying the incorrect penalty, since they are different.

So there are lots of rules which cover runner's interference, but each rule covers a slightly different Sitch, and sometimes carries a different penalty, so it is important to recognize the elements of the play when applying the correct rule:

Is the runner forced?

Did the runner slide?

Was the slide legal?

Was the interference intentional?

Did the runner interfere after he was retired?

Was there a play being made on him?

Was there a play being made on another runner?

Would it be possible for a play to be made on another runner?

Was there MC?

Possible penalties for runner Interference by R1:

1. R1 out (Other Runners return to TOI)

2. R1 out and BR automatically out. (Other Runners return to TOP)

3. R1 out and BR out if a DP were possible absent the INT. (Other Runners return to TOI)

The answer to these questions will dictate precisely which rule(s) are applicable and therefore which penalties to apply.

So in answering your question, I don't mean to say that F4 might not be making a play on another runner, I only meant to say that it is important to recognize, for the purpose of the rule being debated, if the fielder was making a play on him or not, not necessarily, if the fielder was making a play on him or not.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[sdix00]

Thanks to this thread, this board and the members, I have a much better chance of getting these calls exactly right, because I have already done all the thinking ahead of time and I can let my instincts tell me what to do at runtime.

[NWA_UMP]

sdix00-

The way our association and our State governing body has interpreted this rule is:

The runner is not required to slide. If he does, he must slide legally. If he does not slide, he must not alter the defensive player's ability to complete the play. We are instructed to call interference if he does not slide and remains in the line of the throw, draws ANY contact at the base in which he is advancing or runs thru the base. Coaches are told to instruct their players to get down(slide legally) or give up(turn into infield/outfield away from line of throw) on the front side of a double play. If they don't, they will not only be called out at the base but will be charged with interference and the B/R will be called out. Does not matter if the DP could be turned or not, we are given no leeway to judge outcome of the play at first. If the runner at the forced bag is out and doesn't comply with the above we have a double play...no judgement needed or allowed, we have a double play!

The rational for the interpretation is safety, pure and simple. The State doesn't want a player hit with a ball, to draw any contact at the bag or to slide in a manner that could cause injury. They feel this is the "intent" of the FPSR as mandated by NFHS, safety first.

[sdix00]

I appreciate that.

Sounds like state associations are making any interference an automatic DP.

I guess all I can say is that the language in the book is clearly different for regular interference vs FPSR violation. But if they want to make INT an auto DP, then so be it.

[gobama84]

I appreciate that.

Sounds like state associations are making any interference an automatic DP.

I guess all I can say is that the language in the book is clearly different for regular interference vs FPSR violation. But if they want to make INT an auto DP, then so be it.

If he is already out and interferes, who am I going to penalize? I'm penalizing someone!!! :notworthy:

[noumpere]

sdix00-

The way our association and our State governing body has interpreted this rule is:

The runner is not required to slide. If he does, he must slide legally. If he does not slide, he must not alter the defensive player's ability to complete the play. We are instructed to call interference if he does not slide and remains in the line of the throw, draws ANY contact at the base in which he is advancing or runs thru the base. Coaches are told to instruct their players to get down(slide legally) or give up(turn into infield/outfield away from line of throw) on the front side of a double play. If they don't, they will not only be called out at the base but will be charged with interference and the B/R will be called out. Does not matter if the DP could be turned or not, we are given no leeway to judge outcome of the play at first. If the runner at the forced bag is out and doesn't comply with the above we have a double play...no judgement needed or allowed, we have a double play!

The rational for the interpretation is safety, pure and simple. The State doesn't want a player hit with a ball, to draw any contact at the bag or to slide in a manner that could cause injury. They feel this is the "intent" of the FPSR as mandated by NFHS, safety first.

Thats the general interpretation here too. But I will add that I feel the pain caused by the confusion in the book. Its been debated and discussed and wording changes proposed ever since Ive started umpiring (but I dont know if the changes were formally proposed to the NF or if they were just discussions amongst umpires and some state associations).

[sdix00]

I appreciate that.

Sounds like state associations are making any interference an automatic DP.

I guess all I can say is that the language in the book is clearly different for regular interference vs FPSR violation. But if they want to make INT an auto DP, then so be it.

If he is already out and interferes, who am I going to penalize? I'm penalizing someone!!!

I realize this may only be academic at this point. But, if there is no play to be made, (R1 is out on the force and BR is safe at 1B), what in the world is R1 interfering with?

[Thunderheads]

ok ...

is the OP a fairly simple play? It's been so long, I forgot. But .... 4 pages and 69 responses?

This just goes to show you how confusing FED can be :smachhead:

[sdix00]

ok ...

is the OP a fairly simple play? It's been so long, I forgot. But .... 4 pages and 69 responses?

This just goes to show you how confusing FED can be

I think the OP is probably pretty simple. I think I was just fascinated with the application of the FPSR and Automatic out.

[Thunderheads]

ok ...

is the OP a fairly simple play? It's been so long, I forgot. But .... 4 pages and 69 responses?

This just goes to show you how confusing FED can be

I think the OP is probably pretty simple. I think I was just fascinated with the application of the FPSR and Automatic out.

Thus my comment about FED! And, oh, by the way, ...by no means was my comment directed at you....it was just in generalisms :wave:

[carolinablue]

I think it has been a great thread. It exposed something that at least a few of have not encountered yet but are likely to at some point. We can do the thinking now and handle it when it happens.

[MarkW]

OK, so, here's my basic question, with interference called on a force play at second, is it an automatic double play? Or is the umpire's judgment call?

In my game last night, we had a play at second, where the runner was ruled to have interfered with the second baseman covering 2B on a force play. It was a slow ground ball and the runner arrived shortly after the ball. He didn't slide and had some incidental contact with the second baseman. It wasn't willful or deliberate. The base umpire called interference which was fine and then ruled it a double play. The second baseman was not making a play and given the slowness of the hit and the moderate speed of the runner there was no chance of a double play.

We protested mildly, it was cold and we had the lead. And the plate ump informed us on the bench that it's an automatic double play and wouldn't have mattered if the batter runner was 30' past the bag. That part didn't sound right. Was he correct? Does the interference mandate that the batter runner is out? And if there was no play at first, should the intereference have been called?

[mstaylor]

If he is calling a FPSR violation then he is correct, no judgment, BR is an auto out.