2 BRD Plays - Force Play Slide Rule

[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.

[mstaylor]

The first play has the fielder not on the bag getting popped up into him. This is a FPSR violation. In the second play the fielder is on the bag so then it is a straight interference where you have to determine if the second out was a possibility. It is not a FPSR violation so the second out is not an automatic.

[semper_fi_72]

The first play has the fielder not on the bag getting popped up into him. This is a FPSR violation. In the second play the fielder is on the bag so then it is a straight interference where you have to determine if the second out was a possibility. It is not a FPSR violation so the second out is not an automatic.

+1

The on top of base is a key point.

[noumpere]

The first play has the fielder not on the bag getting popped up into him. This is a FPSR violation. In the second play the fielder is on the bag so then it is a straight interference where you have to determine if the second out was a possibility. It is not a FPSR violation so the second out is not an automatic.

+1

The on top of base is a key point.

Only in NCAA is the runner protected on a pop-up slide on top of the base. Thats not true in HS ball.

I share the first posters question. I would get two outs in both plays. I do not recall anything in the rules where the force play applies only to retired runners.

[UmpJM]

grayhawk,

1. It's fine to post the plays in the manner you did.

2. Which edition of the BRD are you quoting from? (I'm guessing it's the 2011 edition - which I don't have yet.)

3. I concur with noumpere and would go so far as to say the second play clearly provides an incorrect ruling for FED rules. As presented it is a clear-cut violation of the FED FPSR, and both the runner and batter-runner are out.

JM

[mstaylor]

grayhawk,

1. It's fine to post the plays in the manner you did.

2. Which edition of the BRD are you quoting from? (I'm guessing it's the 2011 edition - which I don't have yet.)

3. I concur with noumpere and would go so far as to say the second play clearly provides an incorrect ruling for FED rules. As presented it is a clear-cut violation of the FED FPSR, and both the runner and batter-runner are out.

JM

It is a subtle difference but there is a difference in the plays. The first is a clear FPSR violation. The second says the fielder is on the bag when the runner pops up. The fact that the fielder is on the bag elliminates the FPSR from the equation. It now becomes normal interference and it has be determined that it affected the play at first. If you decide it did affect the play to first then you get the second out, but it is not an automatic out like the first play.

[semper_fi_72]

The first play has the fielder not on the bag getting popped up into him. This is a FPSR violation. In the second play the fielder is on the bag so then it is a straight interference where you have to determine if the second out was a possibility. It is not a FPSR violation so the second out is not an automatic.

+1

The on top of base is a key point.

Only in NCAA is the runner protected on a pop-up slide on top of the base. Thats not true in HS ball.

I share the first posters question. I would get two outs in both plays. I do not recall anything in the rules where the force play applies only to retired runners.

If the fielder is in on the bag and the runner slides directly to the bag and makes contact you have interference has stated and can only award the second out if it was a possibility.

If the fielder is off the bag and the runner makes contact, than you have a violation of FPSR since the runner made contact with the fielder who was not on the base. The runner therefore did not slide directly to and remain on the base.

Either way, IMHO either of these can be written any way someone wants but it is going to be a HTBT situation and a umpires judgment to determine the proper call on either play.

[UmpJM]

grayhawk,

1. It's fine to post the plays in the manner you did.

2. Which edition of the BRD are you quoting from? (I'm guessing it's the 2011 edition - which I don't have yet.)

3. I concur with noumpere and would go so far as to say the second play clearly provides an incorrect ruling for FED rules. As presented it is a clear-cut violation of the FED FPSR, and both the runner and batter-runner are out.

JM

It is a subtle difference but there is a difference in the plays. The first is a clear FPSR violation. The second says the fielder is on the bag when the runner pops up. The fact that the fielder is on the bag elliminates the FPSR from the equation. It now becomes normal interference and it has be determined that it affected the play at first. If you decide it did affect the play to first then you get the second out, but it is not an automatic out like the first play.

Michael,

Under FED rules, on a force play, a pop-up slide into a fielder which alters the play of the fielder is an illegal slide and an FPSR violation. The fact that the fielder is on the base, does not relieve the runner of his requirement to slide FED-legally. Why do you think the fielder is NOT on the base in the first play? It doesn't say one way or the other.

Also, note that Carl's "rationale" for not calling the runner out is that he "beat the throw" - which is clearly nonsense under FED rules.

JM

[mstaylor]

I misread the OP but the fact remains that you can not have a FPSR with the fielder on the bag. He can commit interference but not a FPSR.

[JaxRolo]

R1 must slide legally or give himself up. To me doing a pop-up slide and altering the throw is illegal under the FPSR. I dont see where in the rules it says being on the bag is different.

[mstaylor]

2-32-2

[UmpJM]

...the fact remains that you can not have a FPSR with the fielder on the bag. He can commit interference but not a FPSR.

Michael,

Where on earth did you get this notion? It is not correct.

Rule 2-32-2 (I'm guessing you're referring to "c" ???) makes no mention of a fielder on the bag.

Neither does 8-4-2( b )

While I would agree that a fielder "on the bag" in not protected from contact resulting from a FED-legal slide by the runner, he is protected (by the FPSR) from a FED-illegal slide - such as a pop-up slide. 2-32-2(a).

If what you suggest were true, don't you think FED would mention it? In the rules, a case play, a website interp? Somewhere?

JM

[UmpTTS43]

FPSR violation in both examples. It is meant as a safety rule. For what it's worth, he says it is illegal for OBR in example 2. Not true. INT while safely on base must be intentional.

A little editing and keeping up to date would be nice.

[sdix00]

FPSR violation in both examples. It is meant as a safety rule. For what it's worth, he says it is illegal for OBR in example 2. Not true. INT while safely on base must be intentional.

A little editing and keeping up to date would be nice.

This.

I have noticed a few examples where CC might benefit from some additional resources. I hope he opens up the project to include some more editors, authorities, and production resources.

[Forest Ump]

I'm certainly glad that this has been opened up for discussion. I read the two case plays in the new BRD that were also cited in the OP and it did not make sense to me either. My understanding of a FPSR violation is an illegal slide with contact or alteration of the play when a force is in effect. I don't see the differences in the two case plays. The first one has an illegal slide with contact. The second has an illegal slide with alteration of the play. I have two outs on both. Maybe an email to Carl could straighten this dilemma out.

[mstaylor]

It appears John is correct, the base is only a haven on a legal slide. I can get hardheaded at times.

[UmpTTS43]

And I thought I was the only one. :)

[noumpere]

It appears John is correct, the base is only a haven on a legal slide. I can get hardheaded at times.

I assume "john" is "coach JM" -- yes thanks for taking up my point and providing additional references.

On the other hand, if I was wrong, it wouldn't of been the first time and it woulnd't of been the last.

[grayhawk]

Thanks everyone for helping me understand the rule better. Glad I wasn't the only one thinking these plays should both result in two outs. I thought was was an idiot for missing something.