FED discussion of FPSR - NCAA Case Play #2

[johnnyg08]

Fed discussion moved here:

Textbook FPSR in FED

Edited December 16, 2015 by johnnyg08

[ricka56]

Fed discussion moved here:

Textbook FPSR in FED

Where is the FP ? Illegal slide/interference. R1 out, BR gets 1B.

[NorthTexasUmp]

Where is the FP ? Illegal slide/interference. R1 out, BR gets 1B.

As Johnny says, this is textbook FPSR. Less than 2 outs, R1 and BR both out and any other runners return to base at TOP (even though in this particular example, there is two outs so just R1 is out).

[BT_Blue]

I agree. The proximity to the base and the pop up slide makes it FSPR. If this happens elsewhere. It is just standard INT.

[ricka56]

There is no FP at 2B so FPSR does not apply. If you believe that R1 "interferes in any way that prevents a double play" (8.4.2g), then you can get two outs. Since R1 was safe at 2B, there could not be a DP. But he did interfere with F4 making a play on BR.  

[Richvee]

There is no FP at 2B so FPSR does not apply. If you believe that R1 "interferes in any way that prevents a double play" (8.4.2g), then you can get two outs. Since R1 was safe at 2B, there could not be a DP. But he did interfere with F4 making a play on BR.  

Your quote from 8.4.2g is not the FPSR.  FPSR is 8.4.2b,and there's no mention of preventing a double play.

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play,

[ricka56]

Your quote from 8.4.2g is not the FPSR.  FPSR is 8.4.2b,and there's no mention of preventing a double play.

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play,

I know, I wan't quoting 8.4.2b (I don't think FPSR applies). I was quoting 8.4.2g. Some may apply it, but I think that would be wrong. 

I have no problem getting 2 outs when R1 cheats on a DP ball, but this wasn't the case here. Going from getting no outs (I doubt a good throw would have gotten BR) to getting 2 outs on this play would be over-officious. The Fed illegal slide interference warrants only one (R1) out. 

[johnnyg08]

I know, I wan't quoting 8.4.2b (I don't think FPSR applies). I was quoting 8.4.2g. Some may apply it, but I think that would be wrong. 

I have no problem getting 2 outs when R1 cheats on a DP ball, but this wasn't the case here. Going from getting no outs (I doubt a good throw would have gotten BR) to getting 2 outs on this play would be over-officious. The Fed illegal slide interference warrants only one (R1) out. 

Ignore the 2 out piece.  That's an irrlevant part of this discussion.  (Perhaps you agree w/ that)

If pop-ups were "legal" why wouldn't they do that every time?
 

In FED, you must get two on this play.  

[johnnyg08]

[Richvee]

I know, I wan't quoting 8.4.2b (I don't think FPSR applies). I was quoting 8.4.2g. Some may apply it, but I think that would be wrong. 

I have no problem getting 2 outs when R1 cheats on a DP ball, but this wasn't the case here. Going from getting no outs (I doubt a good throw would have gotten BR) to getting 2 outs on this play would be over-officious. The Fed illegal slide interference warrants only one (R1) out. 

It's the same as the case play where bases are loaded, GB toF4 and the throw home pulls F2 off the plate,and R3 takes him out.  Even though R3 was safe, (pulled foot) he's declared out along with BR for FPSR violation.

[Richvee]

Have to remember FPSR does not take into account the probability turning two. That's irrelevant.

[ricka56]

It's the same as the case play where bases are loaded, GB toF4 and the throw home pulls F2 off the plate,and R3 takes him out.  Even though R3 was safe, (pulled foot) he's declared out along with BR for FPSR violation.

I am confused, in the College section thread, you opined that there was no play on R1 at 2B, but in the HS thread you say that this is a force play at 2B? You're a complicated guy.  BTW, In the example above, I believe you do have a play (and it is a force play). 

I still don't know understand how no play at 2B can be considered a force play.  If there is no play, how can it be a force play? If it isn't a force play, how can you apply FPSR ? 

[scrounge]

I think it would be useful to return to the definition of "force play" in 2-29-3:

ART. 3 . . . A force play is a play in which a runner (or two or three runners) loses his right to the base he occupies and is forced to advance because the ­batter becomes a batter-runner. For a given runner, a force play ends as soon as he touches the next base or a following runner is put out at a previous base. When a runner advances beyond a base to which he is forced without touching it, the force play remains. Also, a force situation is reinstated when a runner retreats past the base to which he was forced to advance.

So if there's ANY doubt as to whether the play was coincidental with the slide at all, I'm giving the benefit of said doubt to the fielder. I don't have a massive problem if you get two outs here. But I think the fact that the runner touched the base enough before the fielder got close and that the fielder didn't really even attempt a play at 2nd makes the case here that the force play is now over since the runner who was forced has touched the next base before there was a play.

[Richvee]

I am confused, in the College section thread, you opined that there was no play on R1 at 2B, but in the HS thread you say that this is a force play at 2B? You're a complicated guy.  BTW, In the example above, I believe you do have a play (and it is a force play). 

I still don't know understand how no play at 2B can be considered a force play.  If there is no play, how can it be a force play? If it isn't a force play, how can you apply FPSR ? 

To get the FPSR penalty in FED, does it specifically say the forced runner needs to interfere with a play on him?

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play,

As @scrounge points out, the "force play" ends  when the forced runner touches the next base. By caseplay, we know a FPSR violation can be called after the runner has successfully reached the next base. So let's not get bent on the semantics of the term "Force play slide rule"

So for NCAA, where a pop up slide is legal, I've got no attempted play on R1. To call the FPSR violation in FED, I don't need a play on F1. Just the fact that F1, a forced runner, interfered with F4's play with an illegal slide.

ANd don't forget my disclaimer..In real time, one view, full speed, I've got F4 making a play on R1.

 

[ricka56]

To get the FPSR penalty in FED, does it specifically say the forced runner needs to interfere with a play on him? Of course not, but FPSR does specifically says that it has to be a force play. 

b. does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play, <- This part of 8.4.2b does apply to this play, but this part of 8.4.2b is not the FPSR part. Even OBR (which doesn't have any FPSR) has a similar rule/interp against illegal slides that are interference. Part of 8.4.2b contains the FPSR. These are additional illegal acts/penalties that are applied when a force play is involved (those are the FPSRs). Two outs are only called on the FPSR portion of 8.4.2b.

As @scrounge points out, the "force play" ends  when the forced runner touches the next base. By caseplay, we know a FPSR violation can be called after the runner has successfully reached the next base. A pop-up slide by a forced out runner would be an example of that...but that would be a case of an actual force play. If you have a FPSR caseplay that is not a force play, please cite it. So let's not get bent on the semantics of the term "Force play slide rule" I only get bent up when umpires misapply rules, which I think you are doing here.

So for NCAA, where a pop up slide is legal, I've got no attempted play on R1. What does the rule set have to with whether there was a play on R1 at 2B or not ? Fed/NCAA/OBR have the same definition of what constitutes a play. The slide has nothing to do with judging a play or not. To call the FPSR violation in FED, I don't need a play on F1. I assume you meant R1. And of course you do have to have a force play on a runner to call FPSR. I can't believe that umpires think that a FP isn't required to call FPSR. Just the fact that F1, a forced runner, interfered with F4's play with an illegal slide. Part of 8.4.2b covers this play...just not the FPSR part (no DP).  

ANd don't forget my disclaimer..In real time, one view, full speed, I've got F4 making a play on R1. If an umpire  judges that a play was made on R1, then FPSR may be applicable, but if there is no play, then there is no force play, which precludes FPSR application.

Getting 2 outs on  a play like this would not be in the spirit of the FPSR. Why use it if the "force play" specificity is not there. 

[ricka56]

What if the exact same thing happened with R2 only and F5 got banged into by R2's pop-up slide at 3B and threw the ball away. Would FPSR be applicable ? I don't think so, R2 would be out on the illegal slide interference, but because it was not a force play, you don't call BR out also. The OP is the same thing, no force play, no FPSR, one out (R1) only. 

[Thunderheads]

"On a force play slide..............................."

OP isn't a force play slide

I understand both sides of this, just pointing out why people aren't necessarily seeing FSPR here ......

[johnnyg08]

What if F4 gets taken out illegally on an attempted DP but was/is never on the base?  Would you perceive that to be FPSR?

 

[maven]

"On a force play slide..............................."

OP isn't a force play slide

I understand both sides of this, just pointing out why people aren't necessarily seeing FSPR here ......

Jeff, you're reading the wrong clause (not that I blame you for that, as that rule's syntax is ... regrettable).

In a FED game I'd be applying the first clause: "...does not legally slide and causes illegal contact..." This INT call is pretty garden-variety and thus easy, IMO.

This provision is also not restricted to "force plays," if we're going to quibble about that. It's worth considering 8.4.2 COMMENT in this context, which gives us authority to call 2 runners out when the BR interferes. That's not a force play either, and yet it evidently falls under the FPSR.

Frankly, the purpose of the FPSR is to protect fielders around 2B during exactly this kind of play.

[scrounge]

Yea, I have no real problem however this is called. I agree, FPSR is intended to protect fielders in just such a play. If you judge that it is even remotely close to one action and one play at 2nd base, by all means get that 2nd out. Totally defensible IMO. In fact, it may be the 'expected' call and the easiest to defend. If you think it's a separate play or no play is really being attempted on R1 and just want to get that out for the illegal slide, that's defensible too.

Edited December 17, 2015 by scrounge

[ricka56]

In a FED game I'd be applying the first clause: "...does not legally slide and causes illegal contact..." me too...R1 out. This INT call is pretty garden-variety and thus easy, IMO. I agree. 

This provision is also not restricted to "force plays," exactly, that provision is penalized with that runner being out. It is just the first criteria for the FPSR ...the 2nd criteria being that it is a force play (breaking up a DP)...not the case here if we're going to quibble about that it is not quibbling, if one is considering getting a 2nd out by applying the FPSR penalty. It's worth considering 8.4.2 COMMENT in this context, which gives us authority to call 2 runners out when the BR interferes. That's not a force play either, and yet it evidently falls under the FPSR. Cite please ... 8.4.2g gives us authority to get 2 outs when BR interferes in a potential DP scenario, but that is not the FPSR.

Frankly, the purpose of the FPSR is to protect fielders around 2B I agree during exactly this kind of play I disagree...the purpose of the FPSR is to protect infielders by penalizing the forced out runner when he slides illegally to break up a DP...that was not the case here. Only one out is warranted.

Yea, I have no real problem however this is called. I agree, FPSR is intended to protect fielders in just such a play. If you judge that it is even remotely close to one action and one play at 2nd base, by all means get that 2nd out. Totally defensible IMO. In fact, it may be the 'expected' call and the easiest to defend. If you think it's a separate play or no play is really being attempted on R1 and just want to get that out for the illegal slide, that's defensible too.

Defensible, unless you are are going to use an unbastardized rule to defend it. 

[Thunderheads]

What if F4 gets taken out illegally on an attempted DP but was/is never on the base?  Would you perceive that to be FPSR?

 

I would ....... for me, that throws this video situation into a different light

[maven]

Here's the penalty: "On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner." 8-4-2 PENALTY

Was R1 forced to advance? Yes.

Did he slide? Yes.

Was that a force-play slide? Yes.

Was the slide legal? No.

Put it together: FPSR violation, and with less than 2 outs BR is out.

[Thunderheads]

Here's the penalty: "On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner." 8-4-2 PENALTY

Was R1 forced to advance? Yes.

Did he slide? Yes.

Was that a force-play slide? Yes.

Was the slide legal? No.

Put it together: FPSR violation, and with less than 2 outs BR is out.

play wasn't being made on R1 though .........that's where this makes is not as clear cut as you describe above.   Like  I've said before, ...I UNDERSTAND how it can easily be argued FPSR ...no doubt .......

[johnnyg08]

Great discussion fellas.  It's nice to see civility returning to the forum!  :-)  Must be the holidays!