noumpere

Pretty sure there are some case plays or interps )involving F2 and a throw from the field) that could lend some clarity. I am traveling and have no access (or desire ) to look them up.

It IS a safety rule. But it needs to balance safety with the needs of the runner to reach the base. So if the contact is in front of or on the base, the runner’s needs ( and the game of baseball) win out. If the slide is to the side of the base, that doesn’t help the runner, so the safety needs win out.

It needs to be addressed. How to do so is part of the art of umpiring. See the thread in this same section on stepping from the art position.

No. I’m addressing the OP question of why sliding to the side of the base where the fielder is located is legal on a non-force play and illegal on a force play.

Once both hand move (together) in Fed, F1 has started the pitching motion. Stopping after that is (should be) a balk/ illegal pitch.

That is (generally) true in Fed, too. It’s not the OP.

Only allowed on days ending in “y”

The “slide directly to the base” rule is only for the force because that’s when the runner will slide to the side—to break up any subsequent play. On a steal, the runner is sliding directly to the base or away from the fielder.

If you are asking whether the runner needs to slide, then no. Unless the contact with the glove/arm was intentional or malicious (both extremely unlikely), this is nothing.

Single on weekdays; DH on weekends (and spring break, and other days when school is out)

I recall some “study” (how scientific I don’t recall) where the umpire “behind” had the best look / greatest accuracy. Players and coaches hated it, so it was dropped. Heck, I think in NCAA we went to the umpire on the line in 3 man for a year or two. Ditto the dropping part.

Bases loaded, two outs, team leading by 9. Pitch is ball 4 and we all go home. Team appeals and its strike three and we stay on the field an extra hour. (to be clear, I’d grant the appeal—but it is a downside)

I was going to respond: 1) yes 2) what difference does it make? (Maybe I am missing something)

Can’t get a hit when there’s a force out. Score it a fielder’s choice

It's also in a 2010 interp: SITUATION 4: R1 is at third base and is taking his lead a few feet down the line in foul ground. B2 hits a sharp ground ball that hits third base and caroms off the base and (a) hits R1 accidentally, or (b) R1 intentionally moves so that he is hit by the fair ball. RULING: In (a), the ball remains live and in play. In (b), the ball is dead, R1 is out for his interference and other runner(s) are returned to the base they occupied at the time of the interference. B2 is awarded first base. (8-4-2k, 2-5-1e)

I have INT in all codes.

It was there in 2017. Probably earlier. a runner is out when hit by a fair batted ball in fair territory. I agree FED could be more clear.

I think he was safe when the tag was initially applied but readjusted his foot and lifted it from the white. I do NOT have that as being pushed off the base.

Depends on what had happened prior to this, etc, and the umpire's assessment of the action. Could range from just a discussion, to an ejection, to later action taken by the conference.

1) I see the hesitation as removing the "tangle-untangle" protection for the runner. 2) BR mis-read the ball in your hypothetical play and could be called for INT.

I always taught it like this: A runner is out when hit by a batted ball. Period. Except, that's not fair to the runner when the ball goes through or *immediately past* a fielder who is right in front of the runner. The runner thinks the fielder is going to glove the ball, and the runner has no time to react when the fielder doesn't. So, we have an exception to the rule. Except, that's not fair to the defense when another fielder could make a play on the ball. Heck , the first fielder might let it go on purpose because the second fielder is moving in the direction of an eventual throw. So, we have an exception to the exception. And, now we have the whole rule.

"Tag the base to get an out" and "force play" are not synonymous.

I think he (Manfred) did.

Possibly. When a call is reversed, the umpires do their best to place runners where they would have been. So, if R2 was returning and only didn't return because the ball was dropped, place him back at second or third using your judgment. If R2 tried to return, but "left early" even before the ball was touched, call the out.

It's not really covered, but I'd do something like that. I probably wouldn't point back at the obstruction, though -- point at the runner in lieu of making a safe (or out) signal.