Jump to content

FPSR Violation?


johnnyg08
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1766 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Reviewing the guidelines for an illegal slide....letter "f" caught my eye

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

To those of you out there who work NFHS baseball.

On a double play ball is letter "f" to be interpreted as a violation of FPSR if R1 goes in standing to 2B past the halfway point? 

Is there an NFHS interpretation to support a violation or no violation?

In my mind, I read it as the NFHS wanting the runners to get down or veer away to avoid an overzealous middle infielder slinging the baseball into R1 chest or face. A preventative safety measure. 

A 2007 NFHS Interpretation States the following but doesn't necessarily apply to the question being asked:

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)

2016 BRD Childress seems to support the assertion.

See attachments.

What are your thoughts? 

Thanks.

 

 

Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 12.45.36 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 1.06.55 PM.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the key  phrase is "R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path."  So if he IS at a point in the base path where is CAN be expected to slide, then he either needs to slide legally or move out of the way.  I would not use the halfway point as some sort of line of demarcation - it would be somewhat close to 2B, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I would not use the halfway point as some sort of line of demarcation - it would be somewhat close to 2B, IMO.

Absolutely. By no means...I guess I'm heading toward an "it's automatic if he goes into the base standing straight up" interpretation. 

Is that how you're interpreting it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

On a double play ball is letter "f" to be interpreted as a violation of FPSR if R1 goes in standing to 2B past the halfway point? 

You're conflating 2 distinct provisions of the rule.

Letter 'f' is an additional constraint on legal slides during a force play: beyond a–e, which apply to every slide, a slide on a force play must be in a direct line between the bases (I'm not sure what "on the ground" adds to the legality of a slide: are there "air slides"?).

An independent issue is, when does a runner need to slide? Evidently, according to Hopkins, not halfway. Well, that narrows it down.

But this is not the clause you want, as it merely constrains legal slides. The runner you want to call out did NOT slide, and so he cannot have committed an illegal slide.

Instead, you want the "illegally alters the action of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" from 8-4-2b. A retired runner "near" 2B must either get down or veer off: anything else would count as illegally altering the actions of the fielder and warrant calling the BR out for R1's FPSR violation.

The "alteration" at issue is forcing the fielder to move in order to "throw around" R1. A runner who goes in standing up is (usually intentionally) trying to hinder the backend of the double play in that fashion, and it's illegal by 8-4-2b.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, maven said:

Instead, you want the "illegally alters the action of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play" from 8-4-2b. A retired runner "near" 2B must either get down or veer off: anything else would count as illegally altering the actions of the fielder and warrant calling the BR out for R1's FPSR violation.

The "alteration" at issue is forcing the fielder to move in order to "throw around" R1. A runner who goes in standing up is (usually intentionally) trying to hinder the backend of the double play in that fashion, and it's illegal by 8-4-2b.

Which makes this essentially an automatic? Is that how it's interpreted and enforced in your area? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Which makes this essentially an automatic? Is that how it's interpreted and enforced in your area? 

 

Not automatic.  If F4 or F6 move away from the base then R1 can run througj.  If the infielders stay at the base of move in a line toward fir st then R 1 will be out for running in the straight line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, maven said:

I'm not sure what "on the ground" adds to the legality of a slide: are there "air slides"?).

Yes - runner at top speed leaps through the air, typically feet first in this situation, rather than head first (a la Pete Rose), getting airborne for a short period before sliding on the ground.  Basically diving or leaping into your slide.  A runner could run in and jump into a sliding motion, giving him a little more time in the air at a higher vertical to impede the throw, but still argue he's sliding...except for the rule requiring him to slide on the ground.

I remember it being popular into the 80's - part and parcel to that maneuver was throwing your hands up above your head as part of the slide - giving more things the throw from second could hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...