8-4-2f on a force play

[Welpe]

Quote

 

8-4-2f:
Any runner is out when he:

f. 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; or

 

 

I wanted to discuss this rule in particular, especially the meaning behind "as a runner..." in regard to failing to avoid a force play at any base.

Other than an illegal slide, the usual circumstance I think of this rule applying is when a retired runner runs into a base standing up on a force play and interferes with the back end of a double play.

But what if we twist this and say that the runner interferes with a throw that is an effort to retire him in close proximity to the base? For example: R1 on a delayed steal. Ball hit to F4 who scoops it and throws to F6 in an attempt to retire R1 who is almost at second and still standing up. Ball strikes R1 in the side just as F6 is about to receive it and the ball bounces away.

Would 8-4-2f apply here for R1 failing to "attempt to avoid the force play at any base" or does 8-4-2g reign supreme here in that since the interference with a thrown ball was not intentional, there should be no call?

[maven]

32 minutes ago, Welpe said:

But what if we twist this and say that the runner interferes with a throw that is an effort to retire him in close proximity to the base? For example: R1 on a delayed steal. Ball hit to F4 who scoops it and throws to F6 in an attempt to retire R1 who is almost at second and still standing up. Ball strikes R1 in the side just as F6 is about to receive it and the ball bounces away.

Would 8-4-2f apply here for R1 failing to "attempt to avoid the force play at any base" or does 8-4-2g reign supreme here in that since the interference with a thrown ball was not intentional, there should be no call?

R1 has not failed to avoid a force play: F6 never caught the thrown ball to make such a play. Remember, a play in this case is a tag or attempted tag (of a base or runner), not a throw.

Option B: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional, so there should be no call.

[Welpe]

Quote

Remember, a play in this case is a tag or attempted tag

Do you have a citation for this?

 

[grayhawk]

R1 has not failed to avoid a force play: F6 never caught the thrown ball to make such a play. Remember, a play in this case is a tag or attempted tag (of a base or runner), not a throw.

Option B: INT with a thrown ball must be intentional, so there should be no call.

There's a horrifically bad thread on Facebook about this play with many umpires claiming this is FPSR and two outs should be called. Some even claim to have spoken to their state rules interpreter and that they say it's FPSR, which is almost impossible for me to believe.

If we call FPSR on this play, then defenses will be drilling runners in the back anytime they're close to a base standing up.

Dear God man, make it stop.

[Welpe]

That is just where this came from but you already knew that. It's always fun making connections between forum members and Facebook group members. And while you consider it a horrifically bad thread, I consider it one that is highly educational in the Fed treatment of interference and the FPSR.

Regarding interference with a thrown ball needing to be intentional my contention is "Not always".

From the 2007 Interpretations:

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)

While the last sentence of the ruling does saying that R1 would only be out if he intentionally interfered, I think this is modified with a salient point: "R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path." which indicates that there is a point where R1 is expected to slide or otherwise get out of the way. If this weren't true, it'd be superfluous to mention in the ruling so why bother?

To take this a step further, what is the point of saying "runner or retired runner" in 8-4-2f?

[Thunderheads]

Which brilliant thread is this on Facebook?  There are a bunch of idiots on those pages............

[Thunderheads]

Monty, you think this is FPSR?  One of your comments on the thread (Facebook) would lead me to believe that....

[grayhawk]

That play has F6 making a play on the BR. The OP is the initial throw hitting R1 in the back. Totally different situations.

If you call the OP FPSR, you are misapplying the rule and completely screwing the offense.

That thread hurts my heart.

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

That play has F6 making a play on the BR. The OP is the initial throw hitting R1 in the back. Totally different situations.

If you call the OP FPSR, you are misapplying the rule and completely screwing the offense.

That thread hurts my heart.

Steve, I'm asking Monty if he thinks the OP is FPSR.

I'm in your camp on this.  I don't care what anyone says.   The OP is NOT FPSR ......period.   That thread makes me want to jump off of a bridge .... especially when I see rules people like John Muller saying it is ........ wow  

PS ... Damn, you're up and about early!

[scrounge]

I'm fairly confident that this is indeed a FSPR violation as long as the ball hits the runner before he attains the base.

IF WE'RE PLAYING DODGEBALL RULES!

 

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, scrounge said:

I'm fairly confident that this is indeed a FSPR violation as long as the ball hits the runner before he attains the base.

IF WE'RE PLAYING DODGEBALL RULES!

 

  ....scrounge owes me a cup of coffee!!!!!!!

[maven]

7 hours ago, Welpe said:

From the 2007 Interpretations:

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)

While the last sentence of the ruling does saying that R1 would only be out if he intentionally interfered, I think this is modified with a salient point: "R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path." which indicates that there is a point where R1 is expected to slide or otherwise get out of the way. If this weren't true, it'd be superfluous to mention in the ruling so why bother?

To take this a step further, what is the point of saying "runner or retired runner" in 8-4-2f?

Yes, there is a point where R1 is expected to slide or try to avoid: the FPSR aims to protect the pivot man. None of this relates to your play, where R1 is hit in the back.

The point of extending FPSR restrictions to both runners and retired runners is to protect the pivot man from both.

[rzanew]

9 hours ago, Welpe said:

To take this a step further, what is the point of saying "runner or retired runner" in 8-4-2f?

If R1 is not put out on the play (beat the throw, F4/6 off the bag, etc), then he would still be a "runner".  As such, he could still interfere with the play (illegal slide, etc), and FPSR could apply.

[Welpe]

3 hours ago, maven said:

Yes, there is a point where R1 is expected to slide or try to avoid: the FPSR aims to protect the pivot man. None of this relates to your play, where R1 is hit in the back.

The point of extending FPSR restrictions to both runners and retired runners is to protect the pivot man from both.

One more question then I will leave this alone:

That is covered by 8-4-2b is it not? Is there a distinction in your mind between the two rules?

[Welpe]

3 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Monty, you think this is FPSR?  One of your comments on the thread (Facebook) would lead me to believe that....

Jeff, I admit that is the way I'm leaning though I'm perhaps less convinced than others. That's one reason why I made this thread so that I could get the opinions of more of my fellow umpires on here that I respect. If I had known beforehand that Steve was @grayhawk, I perhaps wouldn't have. 

You know me, I like beating rules to death and to pick them apart. It's the purist rules geek in me, for better or worse. I promise I actually do know how to call a game though this post may cause some (many) to doubt that.

I will say this, there are some very good umpires that I respect on both sides of this play.

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, Welpe said:

Jeff, I admit that is the way I'm leaning though I'm perhaps less convinced than others. That's one reason why I made this thread so that I could get the opinions of more of my fellow umpires on here that I respect. If I had known beforehand that Steve was @grayhawk, I perhaps wouldn't have. 

You know me, I like beating rules to death and to pick them apart. It's the purist rules geek in me, for better or worse. I promise I actually do know how to call a game though this post may cause some (many) to doubt that.

I will say this, there are some very good umpires that I respect on both sides of this play.

I can't disagree there, ... all around

[grayhawk]

@Welpe, I know my statements have been very direct on this point, both here and on FB.  It's just incomprehensible to me that anyone would consider FPSR on a throw that's hits the runner from behind.  As Maven said, the rule is there to protect the pivot man.  There are a couple of guys in that thread that I respect that are defending FPSR to the death, and they are just flat out wrong.  I decided it wasn't worth it to continue to respond, because they are too dug in.

[Welpe]

Steve, I very much respect you from your posts both here and on FB so it's given me pause to consider my argument to read your disagreement, believe me. Same with maven.

I'll leave this thread be, I appreciate everyone's insight.

[ALStripes17]

@Welpe, I know my statements have been very direct on this point, both here and on FB.  It's just incomprehensible to me that anyone would consider FPSR on a throw that's hits the runner from behind.  As Maven said, the rule is there to protect the pivot man.  There are a couple of guys in that thread that I respect that are defending FPSR to the death, and they are just flat out wrong.  I decided it wasn't worth it to continue to respond, because they are too dug in.

Anyone else seen the AZ baseball officials association video on FPSR?

IIRC, they call a similar play to this a FPSR violation (runner goes into 2B standing up and throw from F6 to F4 hits runner)... Not saying I agree with it but that may be a reason why some believe that.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Welpe]

A throw to F4 at 2nd base to retire the R1 I take it?

If you can find a link to that I'd appreciate it.

[grayhawk]

45 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Anyone else seen the AZ baseball officials association video on FPSR?

IIRC, they call a similar play to this a FPSR violation (runner goes into 2B standing up and throw from F6 to F4 hits runner)... Not saying I agree with it but that may be a reason why some believe that.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

There is no play in the video like you describe.  The closest one I could find was a runner going in standing up and making contact with F4 who had received the throw and was about to make his throw to first.  Nothing like the OP.

 

[ALStripes17]

There is no play in the video like you describe.  The closest one I could find was a runner going in standing up and making contact with F4 who had received the throw and was about to make his throw to first.  Nothing like the OP.

 

If its any consolation, the runner touches 2B before the F4 has gloves the throw.

Definitely not going to be any attempt at a throw to 1B with that throw from F6 but I digress...

Thanks Steve

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

4 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

If its any consolation, the runner touches 2B before the F4 has gloves the throw.

Definitely not going to be any attempt at a throw to 1B with that throw from F6 but I digress...

Thanks Steve

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Agreed.

[Replacematt]

I wonder if this is the group that banned me. 

[johnnyg08]

Wow, I'm late to the party