Welpe

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.

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?

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?

I've gone over that many times in the 2016 book. Still see nothing to return the runners without calling an out.

It's the 2015 BRD and I have no idea.

Do you have a citation for this?

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?

Found this in the BRD today while looking up something else: Play 145-287: R1, 1 out, full count. R1 is moving on the pitch. B1 strikes out and interferes with the catcher’s attempt to throw out R1, who slides in safely at second. Ruling: In FED, if the catcher without the interference had a chance to retire R1, R1 is out. But if in the judgment of the umpire the catcher had no chance for the out, R1 returns to first. In NCAA / OBR, R1 is automatically out. Of course there is still no actual rule support but it makes me think this still must be the intention of Fed. Interference without a play is still interference for returning runners, it just doesn't result in an out.

@kanedog was a pleasure to transact with. 10/10 would buy from again.

I lived in Texas for six years. Texas is excellent. California's weather is just a little better. It helps make up for its other numerous and substantive warts.

Fair or not, sometimes one bad decision and a momentary lapse of judgment can last a life time. I know this first hand. This is a concept that many seem to want to keep athletes especially insulated from and in a way it does them a disservice. Not saying he should be banned for life but 4 was not enough. When it comes to sports officials being assaulted, there are a lot of apologists out there.

It's a chilly 62 degrees here right now. Looking like this weekend is only getting into the low 70s. Scrimmages start in a couple of weeks. We will survive...somehow... (California isn't all bad.)

I understand that a case play has the same authority as the rule, which is why I worded my statement the way I did. What I take issue with is the making of additional rules in the case plays themselves without corroborating support in the actual rulebook. As we all know, cases are taken out of the case book all the time and in many of those situations, it leaves us to figure out whether that case should still apply or not. This is a problem with Fed in general across at least three of their sports that I work.

I agree with Maven however I'm going to take a slightly different tack on this play and say I would not rule he had missed first because he never actually passes it on the base path. He has not gained distance towards home as if he were normally running the bases in reverse order (which he can't do going from first to home anyways for the reason maven has already said) so I don't believe he's required to touch it again. I would not sustain an appeal here.

Rich, I don't mind a practical treatment of the play similar to what you suggest. In reality, there very rarely will be a situation where the runner gets that good of a jump that I can say there was no potential play on him. But I'm trying to explore the rules behind supporting the action of sending a runner back without calling him out in this situation. In my reading of the rules, absent the case play, I don't see a way to do it.

Maven summarized my thoughts well and I think the case you brought up, ALStripes, is the nexus of my question. Through interpretation, Fed is adding a type of OBR style weak interference if there is no possible play on the runner. I've said this before about other sports and other rules, but again we have an interpretation without rule support (reminds me of the backcourt interp that is universally hated by basketball officials).

For all the posts you have made pimping Force3 gear, you have no room to criticize somebody else in that department.

So Fed is saying that if there's no possible play on the runner, treat it like OBR weak interference and send him back. Super.

Thank you for the confirmation. Glad to know I'm not going crazy - regarding this particular play anyways.

I just realized this question came from Part I of the NFHS exam so no need to further obscure it. Here's the actual question. C is supposed to be the correct answer but I'm trying to find the rule support for sending R1 back without calling him out. R1 on first base gets a great jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when B2 swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow through strikes the catcher. A. Since B2 did not intentionally cause his bat to hit F2, there is no interference. B. B2 is guilty of interference. R1 is declared out and B2 continues to bat. C. Since F2 had no possible play on R1, B2 is declared out and R1 is returned to first base. D. B2 is guilty of interference. Both B2 and R1 are declared out.

Thanks maven. That is the same ruling I'd come up with in both codes. This question came from our association test (I have no idea if it is the same as NFHS Part I but I think it might be) and the correct answer is marked as the batter is out for strike three and R1 is returned to first. I would think that for Fed we'd either get the one out for the strikeout and leave R1 at second if we judge no interference. Otherwise, we'd get two outs, one for the strike out and then R1 out for the interference.

I'm more interested in a Fed ruling on this but welcome OBR as well. R1 and one out. 2-2 count on the batter. R1 gets a big jump on the pitcher's move and is sliding into second base when the batter swings and misses the pitch for strike three. B2's follow through strikes the catcher. Since F2 had no play on R1 should this still be interference? My reading of the Fed rules says it shouldn't, or at least that R1 should not be out since there wasn't a possible play. Keeping that in mind, do we send the runner back? That's the sticking point to me on this situation and I can't seem to piece it together.

If somebody can't take a runner into third, what says they're going to be able to rotate to home and effectively cover a play at the plate? That's the part of this mechanic that has never made sense to me. It would seem there's less distance to cover from second to third then there is from second to home. Assuming of course they are in a position to properly cover second in the first place.

I use a pink pen. There's very little chance that a high school baseball coach is going to be using that color. I do always keep a couple of pencils on me though.

I thought the same thing Warren though without as many overlapping plates as the All-Star.