Tborze

Thoughts? Porter originally signaled OBS, then realized, “SH*#, I’m going to have to award 2nd”. “Safe”, you pushed him off Riz! If this goes to review, I believe the runner would have been called out and they would have to enforce the OBS and award Gimenez 2nd.

I started to go with the “marching to the beat of his own drum”. @MadMaxis still confused

This is not treated the same as a ball thrown OOP.

Post of the year! They don’t get it Man. I just figured he was blowing his own horn!

I can respect that!

Did you pull your 8 yr old GS off the field?

Like this?

@JonnyCat Isn’t the LL rule when the pitch “reaches” the batter?

Sorry for the confusion! My OP was to show my buddy that on a FPSR violation runners return TOP. But because of your responses, I was looking for further interpretation. So... On a FPSR the runner slides illegally on a force play, and two may be called out. But if no other play was possible, it is TOI? In looking at 8.4.2 O, it seems two are called out whether another play was possible or not because of an illegal slide on a force play as @Jimurraypointed out and was my understanding. Then @Senor Azulstated if INT only, which I assume no other play was possible, then it's TOI. Then @noumperestates, it doesn't matter on FPSR which seems to state that two are called out on the INT on a force play. @mavenI may be wrong, but I believe you stated in the past that runners return TOP on a FPSR because a force out was possible at the TOP. I may be wrong. You also mentioned INT on R3 after he scored. In reading 8.4.2 W (let's forget about the MC) and say he INT'd, how is this a FPSR violation? I hope this is making sense.

I was golfing at the time of my post with a buddy who questioned the FPSR. He was debating that in FED it is always TOI. My stance was if a force play existed at TOP the runners would return to their TOP bases. The CP you sited @Senor Azul seems to confirm my argument. But, you also stated, “TheFED umpire must believe the defense could have completedthe double play had there beenno interference. If he does not, he may not call out two runners, even when the interference is intentional. In this scenario all other runners would return to the base occupied at the time of interference”, which seems to debunk my FPSR at TOP theory. So now you have me thinking! Situation- Bases loaded, 0 outs GB to F5. R3 scores as F5 steps on 3rd base, R2 slides illegally. The umps declare that no other play was possible, so score the run?

Situation: Bases loaded, 0 outs. 6-4-3 DP ball, INT is called on R1. R3 and R2 advance before the INT. 2 outs w/ R3? or 2 outs w/ R2 & R3?

There is a video that pans out briefly. The LFer definitely abandoned his effort to make a play on the ball. From what I remember seeing is he wasn’t positioned straight up, looked like he was positioned in the gap.

@The Man in Blue Ejection 114 on CCS

IMO this is exactly why the "collision rule" was implemented. If the runner decided to run through the plate a collision would have been almost unavoidable, which is obviously what they are trying to avoid. Could/Should the rule be rewritten? Possibly by adding the word "immediate' to it as an example below. Setting up in the pathway of the runner without the ball, I believe, is the key here. If Sanchez would have stayed in FT and then moved to field the throw, we would not be talking about this. There is a similar play which is more worthy of a discussion than this one.