FED FPSR rule...

[maven]

I too put F for #3. Contact that does not alter the play (for instance, occurs after the ball is gone) is no violation.

 

Otherwise, true.

[mstaylor]

Michael,

 

 

I placed three on the poll in the quote it absolutely is asking about a slide. Remember that  the conjunction,but, negates what precedes it. 

but if he so elects

 

The conjunction "but" in no way negates the preceding clause.

 

Example: You may choose to drink and drive, but if you make that choice you could get a DUI.

 

I'll grant my wording is not as clear as it could be.

 

JM

However, in this case it does. 

[sdix00]

Sorry - 

Late to the party, but I did enjoy the exercise.   I worked through this without reading all the posts (sorry).  I think JM's provocative post helped me get this absolutely clear in my mind.   

 

(After reviewing the thread, there is nothing new below. )

 

 

#1 is False - See 8.4.2 W and 8-4-2-f 

#2 is False - See 8.4.2 W and 8-4-2-f

#3 is True - See 8.4.2 W and 8-4-2-f

8.4.2 SITUATION W:

The bases are loaded with (a), less than two outs, or (b),

two outs. B4 hits a ground ball to F4, who throws to F2 for the force out at home.

The throw pulls F2 off home plate several steps toward the first-base side. R1,

seeing F2 ready to make a play on B4 at first base, touches home plate and maliciously crashes into F2.RULING:(a) Since this is a force-play situation, R1 and

B4 are declared out and no one scores. R1 will be ejected from the game. In (b),

R1 will be declared out and ejected for the contact, and no run will score.

 

In this case play R1 at 3B DID NOT SLIDE, and still violated the FPSR.

 

 

8-4-2-f 

Any runner is out when he as a runner or retired runner, fails to execute a legal slide, or does not

attempt to avoid the fielder or the play on a force play at any base; or

[grayhawk]

Well, I guess that's what happens when you go against your gut feeling.  My initial reaction to the questions was the opposite of what I answered, but after quickly reviewing the rules, it became abundantly UNclear.  Rich's case play (which I didn't find), however, is very clear - no slide necessary for FPSR.  After looking back with a little more time on my hands, 8-4-2f is the specific rule that covers this (which Michael just posted while I was writing this).

[mstaylor]

I completely agree that you do not have to slide in a force situation. Not sliding does not automatically mean it's a violation but the bar is very low to get that violation. When you slide there is legal contact and illegal contact. If the fielder in on or in front of the bag, he is fair game, he can be completely knocked down. The poll question three is asking about a slide and if all contact is illegal. That is false, you can have contact and it can be perfectly legal. 

If anybody can explain how this question is pertaining to a non slide I am interested. All it says is that a slide is not required(true)but if he so elects( that means if he decides to slide) any contact is a violation.(not true) It adds any alteration, that is true. 

[UmpJM]

Michael,

 

The "if he so elects" indisputably refers to "may elect not to slide" in the preceding clause.

 

It is absolutely identical in meaning to ...

 

"When the runner is forced, he has the legal option of choosing not to slide, but if that's the choice he makes..."

 

In #3 the runner didn't slide - I know, I was there! ;-)

 

JM

[Jocko]

@MST - He may elect not slide, but if he so elects.... To me this says if he so elects NOT to slide. That's how I read it and I'm pretty sure how Yoda intended it.

Yoda beat me to the enter button

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jocko

[Jocko]

Sorry I thought it said if he was sliding in refrence to # 3. If he comes in standing up and makes contact, then I have a violation

not necessarily. He may still be in violation of the FPSR. Read the defensive player's action. If he alters BECAUSE OF the runner, he is guilty. Contact matters not.

[mstaylor]

I didn't remember you were the one that wrote the poll, and the poll is the only thing I am discussing. If you intended for it to be a nonslide question then it needs to be restructured. I thought you were like me, reading it and interpreting what it says. Sorry.

[mstaylor]

I'll walk away with my head hung down.

[maven]

not necessarily. He may still be in violation of the FPSR. Read the defensive player's action. If he alters BECAUSE OF the runner, he is guilty. Contact matters not.

More precisely: assuming the runner does NOT slide, contact is neither necessary nor sufficient for a FPSR violation.

Not necessary: if the non-sliding runner alters the pattern of play because of where he runs but makes no contact with the fielder, he has violated FPSR (coaches LOVE that one).

Not sufficient: if the non-sliding runner does NOT alter the pattern of play, does not hinder or interfere with the throw, and makes incidental contact with the fielder after the play, he has NOT violated FPSR.

 

And, for the record, the fact that contact is not sufficient for a FPSR violation makes Q3 in the poll FALSE, since the statement entails that contact IS sufficient for a FPSR violation.

 

PS JM, if you can't discern my identity from all that, then I'm disappointed that you've forgotten me.

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

Have you got a cite?

 

The rule says (illegal) contact OR (illegal) alteration.

 

Since the runner, if he chooses not to slide, is required to avoid the fielder (and his play), isn't contact, by definition, Illegal contact? (Excepting the point made earlier about the fielder going out of his way to CREATE contact unrelated to his effort to make a play.)

 

Given the fact that it's an "OR" condition, I would argue that (material) contact IS sufficient (though not necessary). I would also argue that even contact that occurs AFTER the fielder has released the throw would be a vioaltion, and the FPSR penalty properly applied.

 

JM

[maven]

Since the runner, if he chooses not to slide, is required to avoid the fielder (and his play), isn't contact, by definition, Illegal contact?

 

Here's the error: he's required by rule to ATTEMPT to avoid contact. In my minds eye I'm picturing an attempt that fails but does not rise to the level of INT, since ex hypothesi it has no affect on the play.

 

So I disagree that all contact is illegal contact.

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

One rule does say attempt, while another says "and causes illegal contact", making no mention of the runner's effort or intent.

 

What's an umpire to do?

 

I agree that the use of any/all on my part was a poor choice on in the wording of the question. 

 

But I honestly believe that it is FED's intent that "contact" be considered a sufficient, though not necessary condition for an FPSR violation.

 

JM

[johnnyg08]

  

Here's the error: he's required by rule to ATTEMPT to avoid contact. In my minds eye I'm picturing an attempt that fails but does not rise to the level of INT, since ex hypothesi it has no affect on the play.

 

So I disagree that all contact is illegal contact.

 

Maven, so what do you use to judge a quality attempt?  

[maven]

Maven, so what do you use to judge a quality attempt?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I use my judgment.

If you're asking for criteria, I don't suppose I can offer anything hard and fast. In many cases, an attempt to avoid involves picking up the direction the play is going and moving in some other direction.

Such an attempt can fail when the direction of play changes suddenly.

[johnnyg08]

Maven, so what do you use to judge a quality attempt?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I use my judgment.

If you're asking for criteria, I don't suppose I can offer anything hard and fast. In many cases, an attempt to avoid involves picking up the direction the play is going and moving in some other direction.

Such an attempt can fail when the direction of play changes suddenly.

 

 

Okay, but then the standard for FPSR violation should be a very low standard when the runner elects not to slide. yes?

[maven]

That's not really the issue. JM regards any contact in an FPSR situation as illegal: given contact, no further judgment is required. My bar is slightly higher: for me, contact must affect the play (as we require for INT generally) to be illegal.

 

In practice, we would call 99.999% of plays identically, so the dispute is quite minor.

[UmpJM]

OK, for the record, I concur with Maven, noumpere, and Jocko that "ANY contact" was a poor choice on my part (gives me a bit of empathy for the FED test writers) and that I, too, can imagine "contact" that would be properly ruled incidental or negligible contact and "nothing".

 

However, I disagree with Maven that 'affecting the play" is a necessary condition for the FPSR.

 

For example: A forced runner elects to come into 2B standing up. After the pivot man releases a quality throw to 1B, the runner runs into him, not maliciously, but with enough force that it causes the pivot man to stumble. That's an FPSR violation all day long.

 

If the runner elects not to slide in a direct line between the bases, ALL the benefit of the doubt is going to the defense.

 

JM

[Rich Ives]

OK, for the record, I concur with Maven, noumpere, and Jocko that "ANY contact" was a poor choice on my part (gives me a bit of empathy for the FED test writers) and that I, too, can imagine "contact" that would be properly ruled incidental or negligible contact and "nothing".

 

However, I disagree with Maven that 'affecting the play" is a necessary condition for the FPSR.

 

For example: A forced runner elects to come into 2B standing up. After the pivot man releases a quality throw to 1B, the runner runs into him, not maliciously, but with enough force that it causes the pivot man to stumble. That's an FPSR violation all day long.

 

If the runner elects not to slide in a direct line between the bases, ALL the benefit of the doubt is going to the defense.

 

JM

 

I don't pay enough attention sometimes. Curious as to what part of the rule was violated in you play.

[maven]

John, what's the purpose of the FPSR?

 

Followup quesiton: Is that purpose thwarted in your play?

[mstaylor]

I do agree that going in standing up makes the bar very low.

[johnnyg08]

I do agree that going in standing up makes the bar very low.

 

 

I guess that's been my point all along here.

[UmpJM]

A couple of pictures in a local paper from a game yesterday. Anyone want to guess what the call was? (Runner was forced.)

 

 

 

 

For me, the "money quote" from the article was...

 

(The umpire) called it obstruction and said Weaver slid through the base and his whole body went over it,†Sxxxxxx coach Rxxx Lxxxxx said. “From what I saw (Wxxxxx’s) arm was clearly on the base. ... Apparently (the home-plate umpire) has that call, which baffles my mind.

 

JM

[johnnyg08]

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