Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zm1283

NCAA slide rule situation

Recommended Posts

Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYejsgJCmk&feature=related

This was obviously a few years ago. Has the FPSR changed in NCAA in recent years? I haven't been at this long enough to know either way. F1 sliding past second base is not illegal now, but was it before? The announcers are basically claiming that the FED slide rule was in effect at this time and F1 should be out for interference. (I know, announcers are clueless)

Also, do you have interference for F1 grabbing at the backside of the pivot man on the double play? I didn't think he touched him at first, but they eventually showed an angle and he did make slight contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago, the "slide past the base" part of the rule was changed. It's not relevant in this play under either the old or the new rule, or under FED because the runner did not slide past the base and then make contact with F4.

What is relevant, and was missed, was the arm swipe and contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYejsgJCmk&feature=related

This was obviously a few years ago. Has the FPSR changed in NCAA in recent years? I haven't been at this long enough to know either way. F1 sliding past second base is not illegal now, but was it before? The announcers are basically claiming that the FED slide rule was in effect at this time and F1 should be out for interference. (I know, announcers are clueless)

Also, do you have interference for F1 grabbing at the backside of the pivot man on the double play? I didn't think he touched him at first, but they eventually showed an angle and he did make slight contact.

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

Me neither. It looked like a legal slide and there was contact. Contact was made but I believe it was legal contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

According to the 2009-10 NCAA rule book.... rule 8-4-c-1 clearly states that it is interference if "the runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder ( with or without contact)." According to the same book it was still legal if contact occurred in the base line extended and also if it occurred on a popup slide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the 2009-10 NCAA rule book.... rule 8-4-c-1 clearly states that it is interference if "the runner slides or runs out of the base line in the direction of the fielder and alters the play of a fielder ( with or without contact)." According to the same book it was still legal if contact occurred in the base line extended and also if it occurred on a popup slide.

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

Agreed and I don't think the contact altered the play either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

Agreed as well, the only thing that this clip proved is that announcers shouldn't be explaning the rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FED or NCAA - then or now - it's only a violation if you slide illegally AND CONTACT THE FIELDER.

I'm not convinced there was a grab.

Not true in NCAA, you can make contact on a pop up slide as long as you don't intentionally interfere..

NCAA rule 8- 4

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).

A.R.—If contact occurs on top of the base as a result of a “pop-up” slide, this contact

is legal.

hope that helps..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from 2005 and the runner is the pitcher sliding into 2nd base. If we are so naive as to think these guys don't know how to slide and try to interfere and get away with it, we are all in the wrong game. I did not say his slide is legal or illegal, I just said if there is an intentional way to reach out and hit or do anything to "try" and interfere, they will do it. (Seems like in another sport called basketball, you try to "touch" the guy in the back from behind just to try and throw him off and you know a lot of times it is "intentional". It may be called "incidental" sometimes or it may not, based upon judgment, but many times you know it was "intentional"). There is no doubt IMHO this was "intentional" that he reached out with his hand and across to make contact, and not part his normal slide with hands straight in front, but whether it met all the criteria for interference or not is in the judgment of the umpire, up to and including whether "he thought" it (the hand touching) was intentional or just part of a regular slide, based upon the slide itself. Obviously he thought the positioning of the hand was just part of the normal slide and not a reach to "intentionally" interfere. That's just IMHO, and of course opinions are like *******. . . as the old saying goes, and that's also why he is actually working that game and I am just here typing about it, and being an armchair quarterback after seeing the replay.

Oh yes, that 3rd base umpire was AJ Lostaglio who just finished working the 2010 CWS again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from 2005 and the runner is the pitcher sliding into 2nd base. If we are so naive as to think these guys don't know how to slide and try to interfere and get away with it, we are all in the wrong game. I did not say his slide is legal or illegal, I just said if there is an intentional way to reach out and hit or do anything to "try" and interfere, they will do it. (Seems like in another sport called basketball, you try to "touch" the guy in the back from behind just to try and throw him off and you know a lot of times it is "intentional". It may be called "incidental" sometimes or it may not, based upon judgment, but many times you know it was "intentional"). There is no doubt IMHO this was "intentional" that he reached out with his hand and across to make contact, and not part his normal slide with hands straight in front, but whether it met all the criteria for interference or not is in the judgment of the umpire, up to and including whether "he thought" it (the hand touching) was intentional or just part of a regular slide, based upon the slide itself. Obviously he thought the positioning of the hand was just part of the normal slide and not a reach to "intentionally" interfere. That's just IMHO, and of course opinions are like *******. . . as the old saying goes, and that's also why he is actually working that game and I am just here typing about it, and being an armchair quarterback after seeing the replay.

Oh yes, that 3rd base umpire was AJ Lostaglio who just finished working the 2010 CWS again.

Attempted interference isn't interference.

Actual interference is interference.

To be interference it has to alter the play.

It didn't.

Therefore it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't slide or run out of the baseline. He went straight over the base.

my post was only in reference to your statement that contact is needed for the interference to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempted interference isn't interference.

Actual interference is interference.

To be interference it has to alter the play.

It didn't.

Therefore it wasn't.

The play was shown at the NCAA clinic the following year. It was emphasized that the play should have been called interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The play was shown at the NCAA clinic the following year. It was emphasized that the play should have been called interference.

I will agree INT should have been called, he made an attempt to interfere witht he play..

the 2nd base umpire is Mike Collins.. a very good umpire...was the only guy in the US to work DI football, basketball, and baseball all at the same time.. that's hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree INT should have been called, he made an attempt to interfere witht he play..

the 2nd base umpire is Mike Collins.. a very good umpire...was the only guy in the US to work DI football, basketball, and baseball all at the same time.. that's hard work.

WHY?

The FED rule says it's interference IF the runner slides beyond the base THEN contacts the fielder or alters the play.

The NCAA rule now allows contact beyond the base. It may not have then.

The fielder was not contacted beyond the base.

The play was not altered.

Where is the interference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The replay that begins about 1:26 (from along the first base line) shows the shortstop's play being altered. There's a slight difference in the landing and maybe a slight double-clutch.

That's enough (with the benefit of the replay, etc.) to get the interference in NCAA ball.

Note: I don't blame the umpires for missing it during live action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY?

The FED rule says it's interference IF the runner slides beyond the base THEN contacts the fielder or alters the play.

The NCAA rule now allows contact beyond the base. It may not have then.

The fielder was not contacted beyond the base.

The play was not altered.

Where is the interference?

he reached up with his right hand and tried to grab the SS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a really tough play to call in real time. I saw what Mazz was talking about. But seriously doubt I'm catching that in real time.

IF I were to catch this I'd probably call the FPSR. He is making an attempt to interfere, the benefit of the doubt has to turn to the defense in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way this play ended up, based on what happened or did not happen, would it be easier to see whether there was interference or not from B or C. Just asking and not trying to start a B or C debate. You never actually know beforehand what will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he succeed? Did it alter the play?

how much does he need to alter, a lot, a little, just a bit, a little bit more?....It does not have to be a big alteration, just enough, and if the umpire feels he did.. well you have INT.. no in this OP play the U2 did not feel he had INT on the play. But like I said IMO I have INT.. your opinion is Different. I don't really think either of us is wrong, just different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how much does he need to alter, a lot, a little, just a bit, a little bit more?....It does not have to be a big alteration, just enough, and if the umpire feels he did.. well you have INT.. no in this OP play the U2 did not feel he had INT on the play. But like I said IMO I have INT.. your opinion is Different. I don't really think either of us is wrong, just different.

I"d agree that any alteration is INT.

Our difference is that I didn't see any alteration at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • Guest
      By Guest
      Is there a Force Play Slide Rule in NFHS Fastpitch softball like there is in baseball?  What rule number?  If not what are the major differences between how it is called?  Can a girl go in to second base standing up obviously making the 2nd baseman throw over her to turn the double play?  I know this would be an easy FPSR in NFHS or NCAA Baseball but have seen it not called 3 times in NFHS softball games this year.  So I was wondering if there was a major rule difference that I was unaware of.  Thanks.  
    • By James88
      FED rules.
      On a ground ball when the defense is trying to turn a double play, how do we rule on a runner that doesn't slide?  Obviously by rule they are not required to slide, but is there any good rule or guidance on where we draw the line and say they interfered with a throw for an attempted double play?
      I've always taken the approach that if the runner is in the immediate vicinity of the base and alters play it could be interference.  Otherwise, I figure the fielder has ample opportunity to make a quality throw without being affected by the runner.
      I don't find any examples of this type of play in the Case Book, but if I've missed something, please point me in the right direction.
      Thanks.
    • By UmpJM
      Guys,
       
      I'm having a little difficulty persuading a couple of colleagues about the proper interpretation of the FED FPSR. I would appreciate it if you would all take my little "FPSR" test. 
       
      Any supporting commentary would also be appreciated.
       
      Thanks.
       
      JM
    • By johnnyg08
      Reviewing the guidelines for an illegal slide....letter "f" caught my eye
      "f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases."
      To those of you out there who work NFHS baseball.
      On a double play ball is letter "f" to be interpreted as a violation of FPSR if R1 goes in standing to 2B past the halfway point? 
      Is there an NFHS interpretation to support a violation or no violation?
      In my mind, I read it as the NFHS wanting the runners to get down or veer away to avoid an overzealous middle infielder slinging the baseball into R1 chest or face. A preventative safety measure. 
      A 2007 NFHS Interpretation States the following but doesn't necessarily apply to the question being asked:
      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)
      2016 BRD Childress seems to support the assertion.
      See attachments.
      What are your thoughts? 
      Thanks.
       
       


    • By grayhawk
      I am confused about the ruling on these two plays from BRD. I hope it's OK to post these:

      *Play 170-329:FED only. R1 moving on the pitch. B1 hits to the shortstop, who tries - not in time - for the out at second. The second baseman throws the ball to first, after which R1 pops-up on the base, jostling the fielder. Ruling: Though the contact occurred after the throw and did not alter the play, it resulted from an illegal slide: Both R1 and B1 are out.

      *Play 173-229: R1 stealing. B1 grounds slowly to F6, whose throw to second is not in time. R1 then executes a pop-up slide while F6 is on top of the base, preventing the second baseman from throwing to first. Ruling: (EXPANDED) In Fed/OBR, R1 is out, but B1 goes to first.
      **(ADDED) Note 321: Since R1 beat the throw, no double play is possible. In FED/OBR, then, only the interfering runner can be out. It's simply interference by a runner (one is out), not a retired runner (two would be out).

      These two plays are very close to being the same. In the first play, it does not state whether or not B1 was thrown out on the play, but if R1 committed an illegal slide, then it wouldn't matter - B1 is out regardless. Note 321 is very confusing, however, because it says that "since R1 beat the throw" - this is the case in both plays.

      Also, in the first play, there was contact but the play was NOT altered. In the second play, there was no contact but the play WAS altered.

      Can anyone shed some light on this? Also, I would recommend BRD to anyone and everyone who is serious about learning the rules - even if you only umpire under one jurisdiction. It's a fantastic piece of work.
×
×
  • Create New...