FPSR Fed & NCAA

[zoops]

Let's say you have R1, ground ball hit to F6, throws to F4 who pivots and tries to turn the double play, but the BR is safe at 1st.  R1 did not slide in a direct line into 2B and did so towards F4, but did not come within 3 feet of him (slid short of the base).  Coach comes out wanting interference called, saying it is automatic.  Would you call interference under FED or NCAA rules?

[johnnyg08]

As you describe it, it's missing a few key details for it to be "automatic" in either rule set.  

 

As you describe, the runner did not slide to the base (Fed) or through the base (NCAA)...so there is a possibility for FPSR at that point.  

The next thing you have to judge is whether the runner's actions altered the play being made by F4.  

[noumpere]

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

[Jimurray]

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

[Replacematt]

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

Huh? That particular element of FPSR in that case play is exclusively FED. This play is legal in NCAA.

[johnnyg08]

By rule you might be right for FED, but if it doesn't alter the play and it's subtle, you're looking for big, big trouble calling it.  

 

I'm not saying don't call it, but just be ready for a discussion.  

[Richvee]

 

 

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

 

Huh? That particular element of FPSR in that case play is exclusively FED. This play is legal in NCAA.

 

I think what @Jimurray is saying is, by this FED case play, it says in essence, if a slide on a force play is past the bag, or toward a fielder as in the OP with no contact, and doesn't alter the play, you have no violation. 

[Jimurray]

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

Huh? That particular element of FPSR in that case play is exclusively FED. This play is legal in NCAA.

I think what @Jimurray is saying is, by this FED case play, it says in essence, if a slide on a force play is past the bag, or toward a fielder as in the OP with no contact, and doesn't alter the play, you have no violation.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

Huh? That particular element of FPSR in that case play is exclusively FED. This play is legal in NCAA. I think what @Jimurray is saying is, by this FED case play, it says in essence, if a slide on a force play is past the bag, or toward a fielder as in the OP with no contact, and doesn't alter the play, you have no violation.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

 

Right.  But "past the bag" and "not in a straight line toward the bag" are different types of illegal slides.

 

The former is 2-32-2c, and requires "contact or alter."  The later is 2-32-2f, and does NOT require "contact or alter."

 

2-32-2

ART. 2 . . . A slide is illegal if:

a. the runner uses a rolling, cross-body or pop-up slide into the fielder, or

b. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position, or

c. the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder, or

d. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg, or

e. the runner tries to injure the fielder, or

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

 

By rule you might be right for FED, but if it doesn't alter the play and it's subtle, you're looking for big, big trouble calling it.  

 

I'm not saying don't call it, but just be ready for a discussion.  

You'll also get a discussion if you don't call it, and if I'm going to discuss it, I'd rather have the rule on my side.

 

I do agree on the "subtle" part, and I agree that the OP doesn't contain enough info to answer (it's HTBT)

[Replacematt]

Johnnyg08 is correct in college -- the actions must alter the play (nut the bar for this "alter" is very low.  8-4.c(1)

 

In HS sliding toward the fielder is sufficient.  Note the lack of the words "alters play in the rule, 2-32-2f and 8-4-2b (the second clause)

I think I would treat it as in NCAA:

"2.32.2 SITUATION C:

On a force play slide at the plate, the runner slides over (beyond the plate) and makes contact with F2. Is the runner guilty of violating the force play slide rule?

RULING: Yes. A runner is expected to stop short of the back edge of home plate, the same as he would at other bases. Had the runner not made contact or altered the play, there would have been no violation. 2-32-2c(f)"

Huh? That particular element of FPSR in that case play is exclusively FED. This play is legal in NCAA.

I think what @Jimurray is saying is, by this FED case play, it says in essence, if a slide on a force play is past the bag, or toward a fielder as in the OP with no contact, and doesn't alter the play, you have no violation.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

Right.  But "past the bag" and "not in a straight line toward the bag" are different types of illegal slides.

 

The former is 2-32-2c, and requires "contact or alter."  The later is 2-32-2f, and does NOT require "contact or alter."

 

2-32-2

ART. 2 . . . A slide is illegal if:

a. the runner uses a rolling, cross-body or pop-up slide into the fielder, or

b. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position, or

c. the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder, or

d. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg, or

e. the runner tries to injure the fielder, or

f. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

 

By rule you might be right for FED, but if it doesn't alter the play and it's subtle, you're looking for big, big trouble calling it.  

 

I'm not saying don't call it, but just be ready for a discussion.

You'll also get a discussion if you don't call it, and if I'm going to discuss it, I'd rather have the rule on my side.

 

I do agree on the "subtle" part, and I agree that the OP doesn't contain enough info to answer (it's HTBT)

Here's the thing. By literal reading of 2-32-2f, if he slides to the opposite side of the bag of the fielder, it's still illegal.

[noumpere]

 

 

Here's the thing. By literal reading of 2-32-2f, if he slides to the opposite side of the bag of the fielder, it's still illegal.

 

 

There's clearly an exception somewhere in the rules / cases for that.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

Here's the thing. By literal reading of 2-32-2f, if he slides to the opposite side of the bag of the fielder, it's still illegal.

 

 

There's clearly an exception somewhere in the rules / cases for that.

 

As described in the OP .... I've got nothing ....no hindrance, ...no interference (I don't care how the rule is worded) .... I'm not going there 

[Replacematt]

Here's the thing. By literal reading of 2-32-2f, if he slides to the opposite side of the bag of the fielder, it's still illegal.

 

There's clearly an exception somewhere in the rules / cases for that.

I'm sure there is...but the point is that we can't look at the black and white of what is in the rule and what isn't. If there's an exception for going away from the fielder, it stands to reason that there is an exception for not altering the play.

[noumpere]

The "away" exception is clearly in the rules in black-and-white; the "reasoning" that there must be one for not altering doesn't follow.  Instead, it would be more logical to say that if there was such an exception, it would be noted.

 

2.32.2 SITUATION B: R1 is on third base and R2 is on first base with no outs. A ground ball is hit to F6,

who throws to F4 at second base. R2 slides out of the base path in an attempt to prevent F4 from

turning the double play. RULING: Since R2 did not slide directly into second base, R2 is declared out, as

well as the batter-runner. R1 returns to third base, the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

[zoops]

Art. c.

Actions by a runner are illegal and interference shall be called if:

(1) 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);

(2) The runner uses a rolling or cross-body slide and either makes contact with or alters the play of a fielder;

(3) The runner's raised leg makes contact higher than the fielder's knee when in a standing position;

(4) The runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg; or

(5) The runner illegally slides toward or contacts the fielder even if the fielder makes no attempt to throw to complete a play.

 

Above is part of the NCAA rule.  I agree with Thunderheads and johnnyg that I don't think this should be called interference as in my OP, but #5 makes it sounds like even sliding toward the fielder, regardless of altering the play (which kind of contradicts #1), should be called interference.  I guess you could reason that the offense screwed up and that's not my problem - coach, teach your kids to follow the rule.  Gotta love these rules...

[Cav]

Check NFHS CB 2.32.2A: to wit; sliding away from the fielder is legal.

[zoops]

Check NFHS CB 2.32.2A: to wit; sliding away from the fielder is legal.

 

No doubt about that.  My OP is a case where the runner slides towards the fielder but does not cause the fielder to alter his play.  

[Richvee]

Great discussion. I'd love to hear @grayhawk  's 2 cents on this. I know he's chimed in on FED FPSR discussions before and has a great grasp  of this rule.  

[johnnyg08]

Here's the thing. By literal reading of 2-32-2f, if he slides to the opposite side of the bag of the fielder, it's still illegal.

 

Exactly my point.

[grayhawk]

Great discussion. I'd love to hear @grayhawk  's 2 cents on this. I know he's chimed in on FED FPSR discussions before and has a great grasp  of this rule.  

 

I just read through the thread and I agree with noumpere's reading of the rule, but I have a strong feeling that I wouldn't call it during live action in a game as described in the OP.  Some things just don't look illegal, and I suspect not one person would utter a word about it if it wasn't called.  Not that I make calls based on what will or won't draw criticism, but common sense and fair play tell me that a kid that isn't within 3 feet of the fielder and never even made it to the bag had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the play.  However, it would depend on how far out of the direct line between bases he was.  If he was only a foot or two out, I wouldn't call this.  If he was further out than that, then the likelihood of me calling this goes up sharply the further out he goes.

[noumpere]

 

Great discussion. I'd love to hear @grayhawk  's 2 cents on this. I know he's chimed in on FED FPSR discussions before and has a great grasp  of this rule.  

 

I just read through the thread and I agree with noumpere's reading of the rule, but I have a strong feeling that I wouldn't call it during live action in a game as described in the OP.  Some things just don't look illegal, and I suspect not one person would utter a word about it if it wasn't called.  Not that I make calls based on what will or won't draw criticism, but common sense and fair play tell me that a kid that isn't within 3 feet of the fielder and never even made it to the bag had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the play.  However, it would depend on how far out of the direct line between bases he was.  If he was only a foot or two out, I wouldn't call this.  If he was further out than that, then the likelihood of me calling this goes up sharply the further out he goes.

 

I do agree in general with that.  I'd add that if F4 moved farther out because of R1's slide, then I'd get it -- even if the distance was 3'.

 

And, it might depend on the crew -- some violations are easier to see in 3-person when the ump stays with the play, vs 2-umpires when it's PU's call (after the ball is thrown) and PU is far away and still has some responsibility at first.