FED FPSR rule...

[UmpJM]

johnny,

 

Don't know for sure, but my money says that was the coach's terminology, which the paper accurately reported.

 

According to the article, they did get the enforcement right.

 

Concur that there is no reason the BU shouldn't have gotten that one.

 

JM

[grayhawk]

He probably turned with the throw too fast, or as johnny said, he just didn't have the confidence to call it.

[mstaylor]

I always tell coaches it was good baseball when we grew up but it is illegal now. 

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

John, what's the purpose of the FPSR?

 

Followup quesiton: Is that purpose thwarted in your play?

 

The purpose of the FPSR is to prevent the runner from attempting to break up a double play by doing anything other than sliding in a direct line between the bases.

 

It certainly was.

 

JM

[bam]

So....did the umpire describe it correctly and the newspaper messed it up or did the umpire completely butcher the explanation?  Or did the coach misrepresent what the umpire saw.

 

NOW...

 

On this play, in the two man system, base umpire needs to get this.  

 

The ball wasn't released yet, so BU should've seen the entire thing.  My guess is that BU didn't have the seeds, knowledge, or confidence to call it and left it up to the PU to get it right...and he got the call right, just maybe described it incorrectly.  

 

FPSR in NCAA & FED

 

Wait.   What?  The plate should absolutely have this call if a throw was made.  BU has both call at the bases.  If the pivot doesn't make the throw then BU owns the INT (obstruction according to the Forth Estate).  Plate should be out toward the mound.

[UmpJM]

bam,

 

The PU should certainly be in position to see it and be prepared to make this call.

 

However, in this sitch, the play is over before the pivot man even releases the throw, as the ball is immediately dead on the FPSR violation (which has already occurred in the 1st picture).

 

There is nothing else relevant for the BU to look at, and he definitely SHOULD have made this call.

 

JM

[bam]

JM,

 

Not the mechanic taught in my area. 

 

While the contact may take place before OR after the throw, I think it makes sense for Plate to get up towards the mound to watch the runner coming into 2d, regardless of TOT.  Takes an additional point of failure (deciding which umpire has the call) and makes specific duties on the play.

 

As I said, that's taught here.  Based on prior threads, it's obvious that states/assns./boards/chapters - whatever they use to refer to themselves - can and do institute there own positioning and rotations. 

 

I agree that in the play pictured, BU should have no problem making the call.  Given tighter timing, that could be a tough play to follow to first. 

[scrounge]

We're taught that if there's a throw - any throw - it's primarily the PU's call. If no throw, it's the BU.

[mstaylor]

I teach my guys that you watch the ball and turn with it to first, get the interference if it there before you turn. The PU comes out and watches the turn in case it happens during or after the BU turns. If you both get it, where's the problem? If you both get it then the manager should never come out. 

[johnnyg08]

JM,

 

Not the mechanic taught in my area. 

 

While the contact may take place before OR after the throw, I think it makes sense for Plate to get up towards the mound to watch the runner coming into 2d, regardless of TOT.  Takes an additional point of failure (deciding which umpire has the call) and makes specific duties on the play.

 

As I said, that's taught here.  Based on prior threads, it's obvious that states/assns./boards/chapters - whatever they use to refer to themselves - can and do institute there own positioning and rotations. 

 

I agree that in the play pictured, BU should have no problem making the call.  Given tighter timing, that could be a tough play to follow to first. 

 

I think that way is the "it's not my job" mentality.  Do what your boss wants you to do.

[mstaylor]

Given tighter timing, that could be a tough play to follow to first. 

Given tighter timing the PU picks it up sooner and the BU turns sooner. 

[johnnyg08]

Given tighter timing, that could be a tough play to follow to first. 

Given tighter timing the PU picks it up sooner and the BU turns sooner. 

 

Maybe at the college level.  Most FED DP's aren't that quick.  (then we have a different rule for NCAA)

[UmpJM]

bam,

 

JM,

 

Not the mechanic taught in my area. 

 

While the contact may take place before OR after the throw, I think it makes sense for Plate to get up towards the mound to watch the runner coming into 2d, regardless of TOT.  Takes an additional point of failure (deciding which umpire has the call) and makes specific duties on the play.

 

As I said, that's taught here.  Based on prior threads, it's obvious that states/assns./boards/chapters - whatever they use to refer to themselves - can and do institute there own positioning and rotations. 

 

I agree that in the play pictured, BU should have no problem making the call.  Given tighter timing, that could be a tough play to follow to first. 

 

If your association/assigner wants you to do it that way, by all means do as they require.

 

Every FED and NCAA clinic I've been to, says BU has the primary responsibility, and PU has the secondary responsibility.

 

There are many cases where the throw will be released prior to the FPSR violation occurring (or not, as the case may be), and the BU certainly does follow the throw to make the call on the subsequent play at 1B. If that is how the play develops, then the primary responsibility for the FPSR call shifts to the PU.

 

In the pictures I posted, the BU really SHOULD still be staying with the ball, since the pivot man hasn't released the throw yet. And boy,isn't he going to be surprised if the pivot man changes his mind and tries to play on the R2 at 3B (asssuming there had been no violation and the ball remained in play).

 

If the FPSR violation occurs right in front of the BU (as it did in the play in the pictures), it simply "looks better" if the umpire right on top of the play makes the call, rather than the PU from 120' away.

 

JM

[maven]

maven,

 

The purpose of the FPSR is to prevent the runner from attempting to break up a double play by doing anything other than sliding in a direct line between the bases.

 

It certainly was.

 

JM

 

That's not the purpose of the FPSR, but rather a restatement of (your interpretation of) it.

 

The purpose of the FPSR is to extend the INT rule in order to offer fielders on force plays additional protection.

 

For me, that purpose informs my interpretation of the rule.

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

A couple of case plays from the BRD:

 

Play 194-344: 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.

(added) Play 195-344: FED only. R3, R1, 0 out. B1 grounds to F6, who throws to F4 for the out on R1. R1 slides out of the base path, clearly trying to prevent F4 from throwing to first. Ruling: R1 is in violation because he did not slide directly into the base: Both he and B1 are out. (Adapted from FED CB 2.32.2b)

 

JM

[maven]

Thanks, JM, those are helpful for making my point that FPSR is an extension of the INT rules.

[UmpJM]

Interesting read, given that there was no actual "hindrance" in either play.

 

Regardless, they both clearly demonstrate that "alteration of the play" is not a necessary condition for calling the FPSR.

 

JM

[noumpere]

Thanks, JM, those are helpful for making my point that FPSR is an extension of the INT rules.

It is both an INT and a SAFETY rule.

 

A violation of either invokes the rule (and in the case of safety, even a potential safety issue can raise the call)

[maven]

It is both an INT and a SAFETY rule.

I think of it as an extension of INT for the sake of safety, so yes. :)

[maven]

Interesting read, given that there was no actual "hindrance" in either play.

 

True enough, and that's precisely the sense in which FPSR is an extension of INT: had there been actual hindrance, you could simply call garden variety INT and would not need to extend the concept.

[zm1283]

I called a FPSR in a high school game yesterday as the BU.  The ball was hit to F4 who flipped it to F6.  I could clearly see R1 slide to the right field side of second base, which is where F6 ended up as he was throwing to first.  There wasn't any contact and I'm not certain that R1 even altered the play, but I got it anyway.  The BR was out at first on the double play so I didn't have to enforce it.  

[Thunderheads]

I called a FPSR in a high school game yesterday as the BU.  The ball was hit to F4 who flipped it to F6.  I could clearly see R1 slide to the right field side of second base, which is where F6 ended up as he was throwing to first.  There wasn't any contact and I'm not certain that R1 even altered the play, but I got it anyway.  The BR was out at first on the double play so I didn't have to enforce it.  

You still point at it with "that's interference" and wait, correct?  Just making sure my mush-brain is functioning

[noumpere]

 

I called a FPSR in a high school game yesterday as the BU.  The ball was hit to F4 who flipped it to F6.  I could clearly see R1 slide to the right field side of second base, which is where F6 ended up as he was throwing to first.  There wasn't any contact and I'm not certain that R1 even altered the play, but I got it anyway.  The BR was out at first on the double play so I didn't have to enforce it.  

You still point at it with "that's interference" and wait, correct?  Just making sure my mush-brain is functioning

 

Yes to the point but no to the wait.  It can make a difference if theres other runners who will have to go back on the interference.

[zm1283]

 

I called a FPSR in a high school game yesterday as the BU.  The ball was hit to F4 who flipped it to F6.  I could clearly see R1 slide to the right field side of second base, which is where F6 ended up as he was throwing to first.  There wasn't any contact and I'm not certain that R1 even altered the play, but I got it anyway.  The BR was out at first on the double play so I didn't have to enforce it.  

You still point at it with "that's interference" and wait, correct?  Just making sure my mush-brain is functioning

 

 

 

Yes to the point but no to the wait.  It can make a difference if theres other runners who will have to go back on the interference.

 

 

 

I pointed and called R1 out at second at the same time, turned to first to call the BR out but he was out anyway before I could even kill it to enforce the INT, so I just called him out and we went on our merry way.  

[UmpJM]

Zm,

 

If you see an FPSR at the pivot, there is no need to turn to 1B and no play there to be called.

 

JM