FED FPSR rule...

[zm1283]

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

 

You don't call the BR out also?

[UmpJM]

zm,

 

You certainly do - but not because of what happens at 1B.

 

JM

[MidAmUmp]

You don't call the play at 1st, you dummy.  You call the interference and call the runner out at 1st because of the interference.

 

You can work both plates tomorrow so I don't have to worry about you missing that call again.

[zm1283]

zm,

 

You certainly do - but not because of what happens at 1B.

 

JM

 

I didn't call him out because of what happened at first.  He was going to be out either way so I just gave an out signal after pointing to the INT at second base and verbalizing it.  He just happened to be out anyway, which I'm fully aware does not matter.

 

 

You don't call the play at 1st, you dummy.  You call the interference and call the runner out at 1st because of the interference.

 

You can work both plates tomorrow so I don't have to worry about you missing that call again.

 

I did call him out because of the interference.  

[MidAmUmp]

Quit trying to explain your way out of screwing up.  Just get your plate stuff cleaned up. 

[maven]

He was going to be out either way so I just gave an out signal after pointing to the INT at second base and verbalizing it.  He just happened to be out anyway, which I'm fully aware does not matter.

No, he was not out anyway. The ball is dead on the FPSR violation: there was NO PLAY at 1B, so nothing to call. Once you call INT/FPSR, it's just a dead ball flying around the infield.

 

I take it that this was JM's point.

[zm1283]

 

He was going to be out either way so I just gave an out signal after pointing to the INT at second base and verbalizing it.  He just happened to be out anyway, which I'm fully aware does not matter.

No, he was not out anyway. The ball is dead on the FPSR violation: there was NO PLAY at 1B, so nothing to call. Once you call INT/FPSR, it's just a dead ball flying around the infield.

 

I take it that this was JM's point.

 

 

I never disagreed with any of that.  

 

I went back and re-read what I originally typed.  I did say "I didn't have to enforce it".  I meant that I didn't have to call time and call him out even though he beat the throw.  I just turned to first after pointing and verbalizing the FPSR and gave the out signal.  I fully realize the runner is out either way at first base.  

[mstaylor]

 

 

He was going to be out either way so I just gave an out signal after pointing to the INT at second base and verbalizing it.  He just happened to be out anyway, which I'm fully aware does not matter.

No, he was not out anyway. The ball is dead on the FPSR violation: there was NO PLAY at 1B, so nothing to call. Once you call INT/FPSR, it's just a dead ball flying around the infield.

 

I take it that this was JM's point.

 

 

I never disagreed with any of that.  

 

I went back and re-read what I originally typed.  I did say "I didn't have to enforce it".  I meant that I didn't have to call time and call him out even though he beat the throw.  I just turned to first after pointing and verbalizing the FPSR and gave the out signal.  I fully realize the runner is out either way at first base.  

 

If you have the FPSR violation as the BU, likely you have called the R1 out already. If so, come up, call time, announce interference, call the R1 out again, then announce that the BR is also out. 

You do not need to watch the play at first, he's already out. 

[Minnz]

if only they would rid of this rule name.  Misnamed and way to over protective of players.  Now I will get yelled at and be told I need to worry about player safety more.

[mstaylor]

if only they would rid of this rule name.  Misnamed and way to over protective of players.  Now I will get yelled at and be told I need to worry about player safety more.

I am not getting what you mean. I can see where you say it is poorly named, but it is also correctly named. It is badly named because it sounds like you have to slide which we know is incorrect. It is correctly named because it defines how and where you must slide in a FP situation. The purpose of the rule is simple and twofold, safety and sportsmanship. 

[Thunderheads]

Guys, ...

I dont' want to start another thread because my question is regarding what we're talking about here ..........

 

Last night, division rival Varsity game ..... R1, 0 out ...... sharp one hopper to F4,....he turns and tosses to F6 covering second.  R1 goes in standing and just tucks his arms in and turns his body a bit towards the inside of the field, ...F6 makes a clean pivot and turns the double play by a step +.  I do NOT call FPSR because R1 was clean, straight at the base and didn't alter the play at all.

 

The defensive dugout BLEW A FREAKING GASKET!! (Assistant D-bag coach screaming bloody murder)  "He's got to slide! Come on, He's got to get dirty!"  I shake my head and say calmly 'no he does not have to slide' ....He gets louder!  I put up the stop sign, .."that's enough".         Just a ridiculous display of craziness!    Next batter hits a lazy fly ball to center field, inning over.  I see the HC coming my way and wants an explanation .....

 

HC is NOT the yeller on the team, he's reserved and professional unlike his staff....

 

Me: "Hi John, what do ya got?"   

HC: "Jeff, that's interference...he's got to slide...

Me: "John, no he does not have to slide, sliding is never required in HS, however, he cant' alter the play which in this instance he did not as your F6 made a routine pivot and made the play at first"  F6 didn't have to go out of his way to get around R1, it was all routine"

HC: " sigh....ok,............thanks...........

 

Now, based on what I read in the books and in this thread ....my no call was proper here.  I know everything is a HTBT, but I thought this was pretty clear-cut with no issues.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks in advance

[Trakes2]

Sounds like you nailed it to me...

 

HTBT, but from what you are saying on here everything seemed perfectly legit.

[maven]

Sounds as if coach was badgered into coming out. Sounds to me as if you handled everything professionally. Brief, direct, accurate, respectful. Kudos!

[grayhawk]

Jeff, sounds like you got the call right and handled the head coach well.  I probably would have reminded him that his asshat assistant's opinion on calls/rulings is not welcome, but that's just me.

[Thunderheads]

Jeff, sounds like you got the call right and handled the head coach well.  I probably would have reminded him that his asshat assistant's opinion on calls/rulings is not welcome, but that's just me.

Thanks!!!

 

Yes, his a$$hat assistant is a loudmouth, and obviously has NOT read the rule book .........big surprise!

[mstaylor]

Sounds like you got it right. The manager had to go ask simply so nobody could say he wasn't doing his job. 

[BigSimonia]

Regarding the "altering the play" bit - What if R1 is advancing to 2nd on ground ball hit to F4 and F4 throws to !st (either before or after tagging 2nd) and the thrown ball hits R1 as he's about 1/2 way to 2nd.  R1 has clearly "altered the play".  Assuming he's not already out and that he did not "intentionally" interfer with the thrown ball is he now out for a FPSR violation?  Or is he out for interfering with a thrown ball?  Or is it nothing? 

 

If he's already out due to tag at second is B/R out? Or is it nothing?

 

Just asking

[noumpere]

A case play has this as "not out" and should apply if you don't read the distance in the caseplay as being a literal definition.

[maven]

Regarding the "altering the play" bit - What if R1 is advancing to 2nd on ground ball hit to F4 and F4 throws to !st (either before or after tagging 2nd) and the thrown ball hits R1 as he's about 1/2 way to 2nd.  R1 has clearly "altered the play".  Assuming he's not already out and that he did not "intentionally" interfer with the thrown ball is he now out for a FPSR violation?  Or is he out for interfering with a thrown ball?  Or is it nothing? 

 

The FPSR protects fielders making plays at bases where a runner is forced. What you describe is not a FPSR violation. If not intentional, then it's nothing (whether he's a runner or a retired runner).

 

In this case, the clause stating that a retired runner continuing to run the bases is not in itself INT applies. The defense made a bad throw: play the bounce.

[BigSimonia]

 

Regarding the "altering the play" bit - What if

R1

is advancing to 2nd on ground ball hit to

F4

and

F4

throws to !st (either before or after tagging 2nd) and the thrown ball hits

R1

as he's about 1/2 way to 2nd. 

R1

has clearly "altered the play".  Assuming he's not already out and that he did not "intentionally" interfer with the thrown ball is he now out for a

FPSR

violation?  Or is he out for interfering with a thrown ball?  Or is it nothing? 

 

The FPSR protects fielders making plays at bases where a runner is forced. What you describe is not a FPSR violation. If not intentional, then it's nothing (whether he's a runner or a retired runner).

 

In this case, the clause stating that a retired runner continuing to run the bases is not in itself INT applies. The defense made a bad throw: play the bounce.

 

So the "altering the play" is not a criteria.  Also, would it make a difference if R1 ran in a direct line to 2nd, did not slide and the throw from F4 to F3 hit R1 when he was only 4 feet away from 2nd and R1 had made no effort to get out of the way of the throw?

[johnnyg08]

What about Interference?

[maven]

So the "altering the play" is not a criteria.  Also, would it make a difference if R1 ran in a direct line to 2nd, did not slide and the throw from F4 to F3 hit R1 when he was only 4 feet away from 2nd and R1 had made no effort to get out of the way of the throw?

Careful: altering the play is necessary but not sufficient for a FPSR violation: it must occur near the base. Your second example sounds like a FPSR violation to me.

[noumpere]

 

 

Regarding the "altering the play" bit - What if R1 is advancing to 2nd on ground ball hit to F4 and F4 throws to !st (either before or after tagging 2nd) and the thrown ball hits R1 as he's about 1/2 way to 2nd.  R1 has clearly "altered the play".  Assuming he's not already out and that he did not "intentionally" interfer with the thrown ball is he now out for a FPSR violation?  Or is he out for interfering with a thrown ball?  Or is it nothing? 

 

The FPSR protects fielders making plays at bases where a runner is forced. What you describe is not a FPSR violation. If not intentional, then it's nothing (whether he's a runner or a retired runner).

 

In this case, the clause stating that a retired runner continuing to run the bases is not in itself INT applies. The defense made a bad throw: play the bounce.

 

So the "altering the play" is not a criteria.  Also, would it make a difference if R1 ran in a direct line to 2nd, did not slide and the throw from F4 to F3 hit R1 when he was only 4 feet away from 2nd and R1 had made no effort to get out of the way of the throw?

 

I think coachJM might have said this before and I agree with him - if the runner is close enough where he would normally slide then use the FPSR (he must slide to the base or slide or run away from the play).  If hes further away than that, then he cant be held by this rule and the defense needs to play around him unless he intentionally interferes.

[BigSimonia]

What about Interference?

Interference on a thrown ball must be intentional - here the scenario says it wasn't intentded

[BigSimonia]

 

So the "altering the play" is not a criteria.  Also, would it make a difference if R1 ran in a direct line to 2nd, did not slide and the throw from F4 to F3 hit R1 when he was only 4 feet away from 2nd and R1 had made no effort to get out of the way of the throw?

Careful: altering the play is necessary but not sufficient for a FPSR violation: it must occur near the base. Your second example sounds like a FPSR violation to me.

 

But the FPSR specifically says he does not have to slide - only that if he does it must be direct to the bag.