Unusual FPSR Play

[grayhawk]

One of our association's umpires called me with this play that happened in his game:

R1 & R2, no outs.  B3 hits a grounder to F4 who fields it and tosses over to F6 who is covering second base.  F6 catches the throw and tags second base while R1 sees that he's out and runs inside (away from F6) to avoid interfering with the throw to first.  While this is happening, R2 has been running hard the whole way and has rounded third and heading home.  F6 sees this and instead of throwing to first for the double play, he attempts to throw home and R1 unintentionally interferes with the throw.

Ruling?

[kylehutson]

8-4-2-g

Any runner is out when he intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an ­illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner ­including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out;

I see this as nothing to do with FSPR, but simple retired runner interference - no intent required.

[maven]

FPSR. By choosing the go inside R1 altered the pattern of play. R1 is out on the play, BR is out for FPSR, and R2 returns to 2B. 8-4-2-b(1)

The only argument for this NOT to be a FPSR violation is that it's a retired runner hit by a throw who is not intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. But he was hit by the throw in the vicinity of 2B and because he chose not to slide on the force play, so I don't like the argument. It opens a loophole in FPSR that seems inconsistent with the rationale for the rule. As usual, the best way for runners to avoid FPSR violations is a legal slide.

Someone might argue for 3 outs on this play. That someone would not be me.

[MonroeUmp]

I see this as no different than if R1 veers out of his basepath to avoid the relay throw to first, but inadvertently veers the wrong way and interferes with the throw. Except that in this case, the relay was to home not first. Not "intentional", but a retired runner is expected to not alter the play.. The point of the rule is that you don't have to slide, but if you don't slide you had better not get in the way. I've got R2 out, BR stays at first base.

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, maven said:

FPSR. By choosing the go inside R1 altered the pattern of play. R1 is out on the play, BR is out for FPSR, and R2 returns to 2B. 8-4-2-b(1)

The only argument for this NOT to be a FPSR violation is that it's a retired runner hit by a throw who is not intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. But he was hit by the throw in the vicinity of 2B and because he chose not to slide on the force play, so I don't like the argument. It opens a loophole in FPSR that seems inconsistent with the rationale for the rule. As usual, the best way for runners to avoid FPSR violations is a legal slide.

Someone might argue for 3 outs on this play. That someone would not be me.

But did he alter the pattern of play illegally? I don't think so.

[maven]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

But did he alter the pattern of play illegally? I don't think so.

I do. He clearly hindered the defense. "Peeling off" is supposed to prevent exactly that and is legal only when it accomplishes that end.

[umpstu]

18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

One of our association's umpires called me with this play that happened in his game:

R1 & R2, no outs.  B3 hits a grounder to F4 who fields it and tosses over to F6 who is covering second base.  F6 catches the throw and tags second base while R1 sees that he's out and runs inside (away from F6) to avoid interfering with the throw to first.  While this is happening, R2 has been running hard the whole way and has rounded third and heading home.  F6 sees this and instead of throwing to first for the double play, he attempts to throw home and R1 unintentionally interferes with the throw.

Ruling?

So what was his ruling?

[kylehutson]

17 hours ago, maven said:

FPSR. By choosing the go inside R1 altered the pattern of play. R1 is out on the play, BR is out for FPSR, and R2 returns to 2B. 8-4-2-b(1)

The only argument for this NOT to be a FPSR violation is that it's a retired runner hit by a throw who is not intentionally interfering with a thrown ball. But he was hit by the throw in the vicinity of 2B and because he chose not to slide on the force play, so I don't like the argument. It opens a loophole in FPSR that seems inconsistent with the rationale for the rule. As usual, the best way for runners to avoid FPSR violations is a legal slide.

Someone might argue for 3 outs on this play. That someone would not be me.

Oddly enough, it's more of a penalty if you enforce it as retired runner interference (2 outs and R1) than as FSPR (2 outs and R2).

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, maven said:

I do. He clearly hindered the defense. "Peeling off" is supposed to prevent exactly that and is legal only when it accomplishes that end.

No, it is always legal. It is defined as such. Hindrance under FPSR is illegal only when derived from an illegal act, not the reverse: hindrance does not make a legal act illegal. That's why the rule specifies illegal hindrance, not merely hindrance.

[Mudisfun]

So @grayhawk ... as our official RI... what, when this happens again, is the interp for our group in So Cal?

[grayhawk]

31 minutes ago, Mudisfun said:

So @grayhawk ... as our official RI... what, when this happens again, is the interp for our group in So Cal?

I believe this is a difficult play to officiate, and there have been good points made on both sides (interference, and not interference).  The retired runner clearly hindered the play (I found out last night that he was hit by the throw, even though he was ducking to get out of the way), even though he did so unintentionally.  Since this happened on a force play, I don't think we can call out R2.  I'll use another example to clarify this point:

R1 & R2 with no outs.  The ball is hit to F5 who steps on third base and instead of throwing to first, he throws to second to retire R1.  R2 doesn't slide and stops 10 feet from the bag thinking that F5 is going to throw to first.  F5's throw hits R2.  In this case, we would call interference and call out R2 and the BR and send R1 back to first.  Why would the original play be any different?

A well-respected D1 umpire here in CA said that the OP would be nothing unless R1's interference was intentional.  I disagree with this interpretation even if one were to consider this interference by a retired runner.  If you were to consider it that kind of interference, I would still require the retired runner to be aware of what was going on and make an active attempt to stay clear of the play.  In other words, I would consider indifference to be synonymous with intent.  Just because the defense didn't make the play that the retired runner thought they were going to make doesn't mean he can be oblivious to the play they actually made.

My personal thoughts align more with Maven on this.  The safest thing to do on a force play is to slide legally.  Doing anything else puts you in jeopardy of being called for interference.  While the runner thought he was running in a direction away from the play, he didn't.  He ended up running to a spot that put him exactly in the throwing lane for the play F6 decided to make.  It is actually similar to a video the NCAA used to show FPSR where R1 ran inside and F6 actually stayed inside rather than running outside where he normally would have been.  R1 guessed wrong and paid the price.  I have FPSR on the OP.  R1 and the BR out, and R2 is returned to second base.

[Replacematt]

By calling this interference, you've defeated the purpose of FPSR, which is safety, by turning this into a de facto must-slide rule. You've also turned the retired runner into a dodgeball player for situations in which the defense has created the issue.

[grayhawk]

12 minutes ago, Matt said:

By calling this interference, you've defeated the purpose of FPSR, which is safety, by turning this into a de facto must-slide rule. You've also turned the retired runner into a dodgeball player for situations in which the defense has created the issue.

I understand this perspective, but at the same time have a hard time understanding the difference between this play and one where the runner thinks he's veering off to the correct side away from the fielder but guesses wrong.  How is this play different?

[Replacematt]

21 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I understand this perspective, but at the same time have a hard time understanding the difference between this play and one where the runner thinks he's veering off to the correct side away from the fielder but guesses wrong.  How is this play different?

Because he didn't guess wrong in this case--he went away from the fielder. In the other one, he went towards the fielder thinking the fielder wouldn't stay there. We cannot reward the defense for initiating the contact, because that creates situations where they have incentive to do it and also penalizes the runner for being aware.

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Because he didn't guess wrong in this case--he went away from the fielder. In the other one, he went towards the fielder thinking the fielder wouldn't stay there. We cannot reward the defense for initiating the contact, because that creates situations where they have incentive to do it and also penalizes the runner for being aware.

What stops a shortstop from seeing a runner veering inside and staying inside to make the throw to draw the call?

[Replacematt]

Just now, grayhawk said:

What stops a shortstop from seeing a runner veering inside and staying inside to make the throw to draw the call?

Nothing, because the runner is not running legally if he's running in the direction of the fielder. That's the runner's fault for running to where the fielder is at that moment.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Nothing, because the runner is not running legally if he's running in the direction of the fielder. That's the runner's fault for running to where the fielder is at that moment.

I think you misunderstood.  Grounder to F4 who shoves to F6 for the out at 2B.  F6 would normally take the throw, touch the bag and continue towards RF to make the throw to first, but seeing R1 peel inside, F6 decides to take the throw, stop and sidearm a throw to first from the inside to draw a call because he thinks his throw to 1B would be late.  R1 ran away from where the fielder should be, but the fielder took advantage of the rule to draw a call.

[Replacematt]

Just now, grayhawk said:

I think you misunderstood.  Grounder to F4 who shoves to F6 for the out at 2B.  F6 would normally take the throw, touch the bag and continue towards RF to make the throw to first, but seeing R1 peel inside, F6 decides to take the throw, stop and sidearm a throw to first from the inside to draw a call because he thinks his throw to 1B would be late.  R1 ran away from where the fielder should be, but the fielder took advantage of the rule to draw a call.

No, I understood just fine. The runner ran to where the fielder was. That is illegal. 

If the runner went outside, to where the fielder was not at the time he decided to veer, that is legal--and if the fielder comes across and is hindered, that's his own problem.

I would assume we agree the reason the rule gives the runner a non-sliding option is to avoid the safety issue with a must-slide rule. With that logic, the runner has the right (by rule) to run in a direction away from a fielder. If a fielder decides to put himself in that path, we cannot call that interference, because that takes away the runner's legal options.

Or, to put it another way, all a middle infielder would have to do on a force play is to see which way the runner runs, and either stay in the path or get in front of him. Damned if R1 goes left, damned if he goes right.

[grayhawk]

13 minutes ago, Matt said:

No, I understood just fine. The runner ran to where the fielder was. That is illegal. 

If the runner went outside, to where the fielder was not at the time he decided to veer, that is legal--and if the fielder comes across and is hindered, that's his own problem.

I would assume we agree the reason the rule gives the runner a non-sliding option is to avoid the safety issue with a must-slide rule. With that logic, the runner has the right (by rule) to run in a direction away from a fielder. If a fielder decides to put himself in that path, we cannot call that interference, because that takes away the runner's legal options.

Or, to put it another way, all a middle infielder would have to do on a force play is to see which way the runner runs, and either stay in the path or get in front of him. Damned if R1 goes left, damned if he goes right.

So on the OP, if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is throwing home from the bag, then it can't be interference.

[Replacematt]

Just now, grayhawk said:

So on the OP, if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is throwing home from the bag, then it can't be interference.

Correct, unless it's intentional, or if the discussion leads us to this conclusion, a retired runner can unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball through indifference. Either way, it's not a FPSR violation.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Correct, unless it's intentional, or if the discussion leads us to this conclusion, a retired runner can unintentionally interfere with a thrown ball through indifference. Either way, it's not a FPSR violation.

So then if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is one step inside, then it can be FPSR?

[Replacematt]

Just now, grayhawk said:

So then if the runner goes inside, and the fielder is one step inside, then it can be FPSR?

If I'm picturing what you're saying, yes. Did the runner slide or run in a direction away from the fielder? We have no for the first one, and no for the second one. Thus, he has the potential for a FPSR violation.

[Forest Ump]

I agree with Matt. No way is this a FPSR violation in the original post. The runner performed a legal maneuver by veering away from the fielder.

Here's the FPSR rule from the NCAA manual. The FPSR rule is the same in NCAA as it is in FED with the exception that a runner can pop up and over slide in college.  It's a shame that FED doesn't write the rule as detailed as this.

Force-Play-Slide Rule
SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the safety of
all players. This is a safety and an interference rule. Whether the defense could
have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule.
This rule pertains to a force-play situation at any base, regardless of the number
of outs.
a.    On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in
a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’s momentum
to carry him through the base in the baseline extended (see diagram).

Exception—A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the
runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making
contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
1) “On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and
buttock on the ground before the base.
2) “Directly into a base” means the runner’s entire body (feet, legs, trunk and
arms) must stay in a straight line between the bases.

b.    Contact with a fielder is legal and interference shall not be called if the runner
makes a legal slide directly to the base and in the baseline extended (see
diagram). If contact occurs on top of the base as a result of a “pop-up” slide,
this contact is legal.
c.    Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:
1) The runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder;

2)    The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with or alters the play of a fielder;
3)    The runner’s raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder’s knee when in a standing position;
4)    The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or
5)    The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the fielder makes no attempt to throw to complete a play.

PENALTY for 1-5—1) With less than two outs, the batter-runner, as well as the
interfering runner, shall be declared out and no other runner(s) shall
advance.
2) With two outs, the interfering runner shall be declared out and no
other runner(s) shall advance.
3) If the runner’s slide or collision is flagrant, the runner shall be
ejected from the contest.
Note 1: If the bases are loaded with no outs, a double-play attempt is made, and
interference is called, all other runners must return to their original bases.
Note 2: On a force play, with a two-man umpiring system, if the plate umpire does
not have a potential play at the plate, he should move toward the base to observe
the runner going into second or third base. In this situation, the base umpire must
follow the throw and may not see the true effect of the lead runner’s action.

.

[JSam21]

I'm going to agree with Matt as well... The requirements of the FPSR are for the runner to run away from the fielder. He did that. He then interfered with another play. It doesn't qualify as a FPSR in my opinion but as retired runner interference. 

The key here is the runner ran away from F6's location. We all agree that we have interference here... Just not on what the penalty would be. 

[maven]

I don't think it can be retired runner INT.

If we treat R1's act as INT, then the alteration of play is illegal, which is an FPSR violation.

If R1's act is not illegal, then this is nothing.

I think the options are: FPSR or nothing.