Double Play

[Guest Coach]

Was coaching a game this weekend and want to know how you all would judge it.  We were playing under FED rules.  Runner on 1st. 1 out.  Hard hit one hopper to 2nd baseman, 2nd baseman throws to shortstop.  R1 has no chance of reaching 2nd base safely so he veers off to his right towards right field so he won't get hit by the throw.  He was around 30 feet from 2nd base when he veered off.  The shortstop comes across the bag and his momentum takes him towards right field but still throws to 1st base and it hits R1 who is way out of the base path.  Would you have called interference on R1 and get the batter/runner out also? He did not try to intentionally break up double play or get hit with the ball.

[KenBAZ]

If R1 failed to execute a legal slide then he cannot do anything that hinders or impedes F6 in completing a possible double play. With that as the rule would you have interference? From your description, it sounds like an easy call. Also, please note that intent to interfere is not required.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

21 minutes ago, KenBAZ said:

If R1 failed to execute a legal slide then he cannot do anything that hinders or impedes F6 in completing a possible double play. 
 

I would suggest going back and looking at the rule.

[maven]

If the question is: does this count as INT with a thrown ball, then intent IS required, per 8-4-2g. The OP reports no intent to interfere with the thrown ball, so this is not INT with a thrown ball.

It could however be a FPSR violation. 8-4-2b rules a runner out when he does not legally slide and illegally contacts or alters the actions of a fielder in the immediate act of making a play. This provision applies to action near the base—contacting a fielder, or making him move around the runner—but the OP reports that the throw hit the runner 20 or 30 feet from 2B. So no violation of this provision.

A retired runner has a higher bar to avoid fielders at the base (8-4-2f), but again, R1 was far from 2B. 

Sounds like nothing to me, play the bounce.

[Jimurray]

Although the interp says less than halfway I would not have INT on R1 30' away and peeling off. He is not required to slide.

2006 Interps:

"SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)"

 

[noumpere]

4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Although the interp says less than halfway I would not have INT on R1 30' away and peeling off. He is not required to slide.

2006 Interps:

"SITUATION 19: R1 is on first base with no outs. B2 smashes a one-hopper to F6, who flips the ball to F4 to quickly retire R1. F4 then relays the ball to first in an attempt for a double play, but the ball strikes R1, who is in the baseline and less than halfway to second. The ball ricochets into short right field and B2 reaches first safely. RULING: The play stands. This is not a violation of the force-play slide rule by R1. Unless R1 intentionally made a move to interfere with the thrown ball, the ball stays live and in play. (8-4-2b, 8-4-2g)"

 

I always used "if the runner is close enough that he should be sliding, then the rule applies" without any difficulty explaining it to a coach.

[Replacematt]

Let's think about this. Under FPSR, what is protected from the runner?

[BobUmp]

i'M IN ON THIS..

First, the NFHS rules:

2-32-1   A legal slide can be either feet first or head first. If a runner slides feet first, at least one leg and buttock shall be on the ground. If a runner slides, he must slide within reach of the base with either a hand or a foot. A runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder (8-4-2b).

2-32-2   A slide is illegal if:

1. the runner uses a rolling, cross-body or pop-up slide into the fielder, or
2. the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when the fielder is in a standing position, or
3. except at home plate, the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder. At home plate, it is permissible for the slider's momentum to carry him through the plate in a straight line (baseline extended, or
4. the runner slashes or kicks the fielder with either leg, or
5. the runner tries to injure the fielder, or
6. the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases.

8-4-2   Any runner is out when he:

1. runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged or to hinder a fielder while the runner is advancing or returning to a base;
   1. This is not an infraction if a fielder attempting to field a batted ball is in the runner’s proper path and if the runner runs behind the fielder to avoid interfering with him.
   2. When a play is being made on a runner or batter-runner, he establishes his baseline as directly between his position and the base toward which he is moving.
2. 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, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or
   1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.
   2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.
   
   PENALTY:   The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. With two outs, the runner is declared out. The batter is credited with a fielder’s choice.
3. does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him; or
   
   PENALTY:    The runner is out, the ball remains live unless interference is called.
4. dives over a fielder; or
   
   PENALTY:    The runner is out and the ball remains live unless interference occurs and is declared.
5. initiates malicious contact;
   1. Malicious contact always supersedes obstruction. Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire's judgment.
6. 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
7. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3-2-3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out; or
   1. If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball and that fielder only is entitled to protection. If a fielder drops a batted ball and contact with a runner occurs during a subsequent attempt to field the ball, the fielder has the greater responsibility for avoiding contact.

8-4-2 continues, but the rest does not apply this situation posed, i believe...

So we had a runner abandoning his effort about 30 feet or so from 2nd base, and moving out of the basepath (directly between 2nd and 1st) towards the outfield, presumably to avoid being in the throwing lane

But, alas, he runs right into the throwing lane of the fielder, because the fielder stepped on 2nd and then drifted towards the outfield.. So he gets hit on the throw to first....

So, the rules above state:

2-32-1: " A runner may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder"

2-32-1: a slide is illegal if: "the runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases."

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he: "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, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases" "PENALTY: The runner is out. Interference is called and the ball is dead immediately. On a force-play slide with less than two outs, the runner is declared out, as well as the batter-runner. Runners shall return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch."

Also from 8-4-2; Any runner is out when he "intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location" and "or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3-2-3) or by the batter-runner" and "If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out." 

So, I am going with this situation is in the realm of 'judgement call" of illegal interference, then rules application of a penalty (illegal) or no-penalty (nothing) because:

1) The runner gave up semi-early: not before halfway (45 ft or longer from 2nd) which the interp example had "no interference", but still kind of early to put a possible seed of doubt that a well-aimed non-erroneous throw from 2nd would have a chance to hit him.. So, judgement part A) was the fielder's throw from 2nd "misplayed" or "bungled" somehow, having nothing to do with the runner giving up and veering off? if so, then NO interference, we got nothing

2) Did the runner "give up giving up" too soon, and bungle himself right into the throwing path? So, judgement part B) did the runner intentionally (definitely interference, and by rule a double play) or unintentionally move himself right into the established throwing path of the throw from 2nd to 1st? if unintentional, could he have caused the fielder to 'bungle" the throw a little, or even just run plain in the way of a well-aimed throw? if so, he interfered, and the rule has a double play. if not, then it was just a poor throw/execution by the fielder and we have nothing...

Now, all that said, I really think, in most cases where a runner who is closer than halfway to 2nd and veers into a double play throw from 2nd and gets hit, I am judging interference (unintentional or intentional) on the runner and grabbing two outs... but since it is also IMO a judgement call on interference or nothing, I hope there wasn't a huge "discussion" from defense with the umpires... just check to make sure the judgement was no interference (intentional or unintentional) by the runner, the fielder misplayed the double play throw (which would make the no-call ruling legal)...

 

[maven]

We set aside FPSR because the runner is so far from the base. FPSR protects a fielder from an on-coming runner, and this runner is 30 feet away. Let's not hang too much on the case play's "halfway" language: we're not going to restrict this ruling to a runner who's exactly 45 feet from the base.

INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. Nothing in the OP signals intent. So it must be a no call.

This is NOT a matter of judgment: it's the application of the correct rule. Half of the rules you've posted are irrelevant. Determining the correct rule to apply is not judgment, but correct rules knowledge.

The judgment element of the call is given in the OP: the runner did not intend to interfere. Given correct rules knowledge, that's sufficient to make this call.

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

We set aside FPSR because the runner is so far from the base. FPSR protects a fielder from an on-coming runner, and this runner is 30 feet away. Let's not hang too much on the case play's "halfway" language: we're not going to restrict this ruling to a runner who's exactly 45 feet from the base.

INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. Nothing in the OP signals intent. So it must be a no call.

This is NOT a matter of judgment: it's the application of the correct rule. Half of the rules you've posted are irrelevant. Determining the correct rule to apply is not judgment, but correct rules knowledge.

The judgment element of the call is given in the OP: the runner did not intend to interfere. Given correct rules knowledge, that's sufficient to make this call.

I would agree in FED but I believe the retired runner would be out in OBR. His only protection from unintentional interference in OBR is to continue to run the bases normally. In fact before the change to the slide rule at a forced base Wendelstedt used "running the bases normally" as protection for the retired runner to continue the slide at the base.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, maven said:

We set aside FPSR because the runner is so far from the base. FPSR protects a fielder from an on-coming runner, and this runner is 30 feet away. Let's not hang too much on the case play's "halfway" language: we're not going to restrict this ruling to a runner who's exactly 45 feet from the base.

INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. Nothing in the OP signals intent. So it must be a no call.

This is NOT a matter of judgment: it's the application of the correct rule. Half of the rules you've posted are irrelevant. Determining the correct rule to apply is not judgment, but correct rules knowledge.

The judgment element of the call is given in the OP: the runner did not intend to interfere. Given correct rules knowledge, that's sufficient to make this call.

Mmmhmmm...now we've got it.

[ousafe]

On 11/18/2019 at 10:31 AM, Guest Coach said:

so he veers off to his right towards right field so he won't get hit by the throw.

OP says no intent.  Fair enough.

But if I see anything like the above - I mean c'mon.  That is intentional.  Everyone knows where that shortstop is going, especially the runner (because he's looking right at him).  He's seen that play many many times.  Of course there was no accident to the direction he veered.

Feel free to judge otherwise...

[maven]

5 hours ago, ousafe said:

OP says no intent.  Fair enough.

But if I see anything like the above - I mean c'mon.  That is intentional.  Everyone knows where that shortstop is going, especially the runner (because he's looking right at him).  He's seen that play many many times.  Of course there was no accident to the direction he veered.

Feel free to judge otherwise...

I want to push back against this philosophy, that this is a 50-50 call, and so either call is equally justifiable.

INT is a major infraction, with a major penalty: we remove runners from base and award the defense outs. Both runners and outs are precious to the offense, especially outs. The offense gets only a fixed number of those in a game; compared to OBS, with its awards of bases and, possibly, runs, on which there is no limit.

We want INT to be BIG, obvious, and clear to any observer. The best INT calls prompt the runner's coach to yell at HIM, not us. Our officiating philosophy here must be: when in doubt, it is NOT interference. Borderline is not an infraction.

We could debate whether the runner's intent to interfere is really as clear as all that, but it doesn't matter. Even if you think it more likely than not, it's not obvious enough to warrant an INT call. Compare it to the play where the runner reaches out to hit the throw: that's INT.

[beerguy55]

18 hours ago, maven said:

 

INT with a thrown ball must be intentional. Nothing in the OP signals intent. So it must be a no call.

 

For a retired runner?  Or is that only an issue in OBR?

9 hours ago, ousafe said:

OP says no intent.  Fair enough.

But if I see anything like the above - I mean c'mon.  That is intentional.  Everyone knows where that shortstop is going, especially the runner (because he's looking right at him).  He's seen that play many many times.  Of course there was no accident to the direction he veered.

Feel free to judge otherwise...

If you've actually played the game you would know this isn't true.  He's veering to the right because it's the natural way to turn to get out of the way, and it's years of habit - Hell, you turn right when overrunning first base...he will turn right whether it's F6 coming across the bag, or F4 crossing the bag the other direction - R1 is going to veer right 99% of the time.   Most of the time the fielder is not making the throw on the move...they've had the time to stop and plant...they're throwing with their right hand...the runners have been taught to veer right, away from the throwing hand, forever.

If F6 knows what he's doing, even if makes the throw on the move as his momentum moves him across the bag, the throw, coming from his right hand, is not going to be very far off the base path...maybe three feet at best.  I've made that throw thousands of times.  If he's actually gone ten feet past the base before making the throw, he's not getting the batter, and he doesn't know what he's doing.  Otherwise, if F6's throw hits R1, who has veered right, he's made a terrible throw.

 

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, ousafe said:

OP says no intent.  Fair enough.

But if I see anything like the above - I mean c'mon.  That is intentional.  Everyone knows where that shortstop is going, especially the runner (because he's looking right at him).  He's seen that play many many times.  Of course there was no accident to the direction he veered.

Feel free to judge otherwise...

Counter:  The ball was so hard hit that F6 has plenty of time to make a throw to first without drifting toward right field and he doesn't need to drift because R1 is so far from the base..  And, R1 is in his sights.  So, the only reason F6 drifted was to intentionally hit R1 with the ball.  Eject F6.

 

Fee free to judge otherwise ...

[Guest bigblue2u]

Guys,

Let's get serious!  First, we are not going to expect a runner to slide 30 feet from the base.  So, the FPSR is not in effect.  Second, he did what he was expected to do, veer away from the play.  If he was not intentionally trying to get hit with the throw, we have nothing.  And, food for thought: If, as some say, the runner deliberately tried to get hit with the throw, who is to say the fielder did not intentionally throw at the runner hoping to get an interference call? 

[BobUmp]

Hmmm. digesting the comments, and trying to match that against how I think i would have reacted....I agree, an illegal slide via FPSR is not what we are talking about, no issues there...

What is getting me is the fact that the runner gets hit with the throw from "around" second base. i am still sticking with my "it's a judgement call" first:

Scenario 1) Yes, it could be that the fielder made a lousy throw = judgement = "that's nothing" = rules application is live ball, play on

Scenario 2) Yes, it could be that the fielder totally misplayed the DP attempt and didn't attempt a throw until he was multiple steps away from second and basically tried to throw from the outfield, which put the runner in the way of the throw to first = judgement = "that's nothing" = rules application is live ball, play on

Scenario 3) Yes, it could be that the fielder intentionally threw at the runner = judgement= "malicious action" = rules application is "time, that's illegal", fielder is ejected, and runner is out on preceding force out

i think most of the time the above three scenarios will be pretty obvious. I can even accept other umpires leaning towards "scenario 1 or 2 unless proven otherwise".

But in my case, as the OP was stated above, and using FED, i would grab a DP unless I clearly judged that one of the 3 scenarios above apply. And intentional or unintentional, FED or OBR, if the runner veers out of his established basepath and interferes with (in this case) a DP attempt, as long as MC (intentional throw at him) or a misplay by the fielder (scenarios 1 and 2 in this case) in my judgement did not occur, then by rule I must grab the second out. Correct??

Now if the OP included info on where the runner was when hit (ie, say he was "on the outfield grass" or a good 10 steps toward the outfield") I may judge that it was a misplay by the fielder, even if not so obvious from the point of the fielder's release. This may in fact have been the case since the OP states he "was way out  of the basepath".  So maybe "way out" when watching the play ensured that it must have been a misplay by the fielder and i would call "nothing". but i would have to be there to judge. And as i said above, i can respect a call by another umpire as "nothing" if he judged that it had to be a misplay by the fielder.

 

 

[Replacematt]

17 minutes ago, BobUmp said:

And intentional or unintentional, FED or OBR, if the runner veers out of his established basepath and interferes with (in this case) a DP attempt, as long as MC (intentional throw at him) or a misplay by the fielder (scenarios 1 and 2 in this case) in my judgement did not occur, then by rule I must grab the second out. Correct??

Not in FED.

[noumpere]

25 minutes ago, BobUmp said:

Now if the OP included info on where the runner was when hit (ie, say he was "on the outfield grass" or a good 10 steps toward the outfield") I may judge that it was a misplay by the fielder, even if not so obvious from the point of the fielder's release. This may in fact have been the case since the OP states he "was way out  of the basepath".  So maybe "way out" when watching the play ensured that it must have been a misplay by the fielder and i would call "nothing". but i would have to be there to judge. And as i said above, i can respect a call by another umpire as "nothing" if he judged that it had to be a misplay by the fielder.

I think that instead of the location, you need to look at the timing.

If R1 sees where F6 is going as F6 starts his throwing motion THEN R1 moves to get in the way, maybe you can get the INT.  Or, R1 veers to his right, F6 stops on the base, R1 veers back into the baseline, maybe you can get the INT.

 

Absent that (and it almost always will be; and the OP contains no mention of it), then it's play on.

[BobUmp]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Not in FED.

This is a learning experience for me. luckily, i have not had to make a DP call on an OP like this using FED rules in the past..

I was applying FED 8-4-2 Clauses 2 and 6, and part of 7:

8-4-2   Any runner is out when he:.

2. 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, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.
2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

6. 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

7. .......... If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out

i was interpreting the Clauses as: 

He elected not to slide, so to be legal, he either must stay in a direct line between the bases and be far enough away from the fielder as to not alter the fielders actions, or he must avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. if he did (unintentional or intentional), he was out and the BR was out.

So, I am guessing what you are saying is: 

8-4-2 Clause 7 applies to INTENTIONAL interference by the runner only

8-4-2 Clauses 2 and 6 apply to FPSR at the base (close vicinity of) at the immediate time of the force play and initial throw attempt ONLY, not to the entire play or away from the base

Do I have this correct now? 

Thanks for the clarification in advance

 

[beerguy55]

28 minutes ago, BobUmp said:

6. 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

In reading this clause I would determine that in the OP the runner did indeed "attempt to avoid the fielder or the play" by veering to the right

Aside from that, if the OP happens as I think it did, and R1 is several feet off the baseline when he gets hit, you either have a terrible throw that wouldn't have got BR anyway...or, F6 was too far past the base and now made the throw too late to get BR...in either scenario I would use clause 7 - "and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out" to potentially judge another runner could NOT have been put out.

I think the FED rules give you a lot of ways out of this to let the play go on.

 

[Replacematt]

58 minutes ago, BobUmp said:

This is a learning experience for me. luckily, i have not had to make a DP call on an OP like this using FED rules in the past..

I was applying FED 8-4-2 Clauses 2 and 6, and part of 7:

8-4-2   Any runner is out when he:.

2. 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, or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases; or

1. A runner may slide in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder.
2. Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal. (2-32-1, 2) Jumping, hurdling, and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder as long as the fielder is lying on the ground. Diving over a fielder is illegal.

6. 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

7. .......... If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out

i was interpreting the Clauses as: 

He elected not to slide, so to be legal, he either must stay in a direct line between the bases and be far enough away from the fielder as to not alter the fielders actions, or he must avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. if he did (unintentional or intentional), he was out and the BR was out.

So, I am guessing what you are saying is: 

8-4-2 Clause 7 applies to INTENTIONAL interference by the runner only

8-4-2 Clauses 2 and 6 apply to FPSR at the base (close vicinity of) at the immediate time of the force play and initial throw attempt ONLY, not to the entire play or away from the base

Do I have this correct now? 

Thanks for the clarification in advance

 

2 is irrelevant, as it only applies if a runner attempts to slide.

7 is a non-substantive clause; it merely provides the penalty. It does not define interference.

[beerguy55]

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

is a non-substantive clause; it merely provides the penalty. It does not define interference.

It does, however, provide a very clear condition for applying the penalty.  A condition I find a lot of people forget, miss or ignore.

[Aging_Arbiter]

............other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[maven]

On 11/21/2019 at 11:26 AM, BobUmp said:

But in my case, as the OP was stated above, and using FED, i would grab a DP unless I clearly judged that one of the 3 scenarios above apply. And intentional or unintentional, FED or OBR, if the runner veers out of his established basepath and interferes with (in this case) a DP attempt, as long as MC (intentional throw at him) or a misplay by the fielder (scenarios 1 and 2 in this case) in my judgement did not occur, then by rule I must grab the second out. Correct??

No, the "default call" or benefit of the doubt is backwards here. The default call is nothing unless it's clearly, obviously, no-doubt-whatever INT. You seem to be saying that the runner is guilty unless proved clearly innocent.

The rationale for a no-call is laid out earlier in the thread. Apparently it's not sufficient for some umpires. Oh well. I will add only this:

I'm aware that OBR has a stricter provision on retired runner INT than FED, and in pro ball that makes sense: you don't have runners and fielders making bad plays and getting in each others' way by accident. When they're in each others' way, it's usually intentional and deserves to be penalized accordingly.

I would not hold amateur players using an OBR-based code to the same standard. When R1 peels off "routinely" to get out of the way, and F6 plays badly to put him back in the throwing lane, why on earth would we penalize the runner for that? That's not what the rule requires, not good judgment, not good game management, and not "strong" officiating.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, maven said:

No, the "default call" or benefit of the doubt is backwards here. The default call is nothing unless it's clearly, obviously, no-doubt-whatever INT. You seem to be saying that the runner is guilty unless proved clearly innocent.

The rationale for a no-call is laid out earlier in the thread. Apparently it's not sufficient for some umpires. Oh well. I will add only this:

I'm aware that OBR has a stricter provision on retired runner INT than FED, and in pro ball that makes sense: you don't have runners and fielders making bad plays and getting in each others' way by accident. When they're in each others' way, it's usually intentional and deserves to be penalized accordingly.

I would not hold amateur players using an OBR-based code to the same standard. When R1 peels off "routinely" to get out of the way, and F6 plays badly to put him back in the throwing lane, why on earth would we penalize the runner for that? That's not what the rule requires, not good judgment, not good game management, and not "strong" officiating.

In any OBR league that doesn't add a force play slide rule I would apply the OBR rule. The retired runner is free to continue to his base standing up or sliding.