Jump to content

FPSR Violation Ends Game 1 of the CWS


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I bet he does... It went to replay and the call was confirmed by the NCAA, which included the secretary/rules editor. 

Not in the CWS play. He neither slid/ran away from the fielder, nor avoided contacting the fielder. Note that the applicability of FPSR (both NCAA and FED) does NOT depend on how likely a double

Why not? The college rule -  right there in the first two sentences - says 1: this is a safety rule and 2: whether a double play is possible is irrelevant.   I'll call that in college and high sc

Posted Images

I like the call. Certainly within the letter of the law, and a good lesson to all who saw it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Not the intent of the rule IMO

FPSR is a safety rule, and in NCAA (if I understand it) you must slide in this situation ... @maven.. YES?

41 minutes ago, maven said:

I like the call. Certainly within the letter of the law, and a good lesson to all who saw it. 

Concur!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not cut and dried at all, because there's an "exception." Yes, I can read the first sentence, but the rule has more than that. When read properly, the NCAA rule is equivalent to the FED rule (they differ on details of a legal slide):

  1. FPSR adds additional constraints on a legal slide, and
  2. Runners are NOT required to slide: they may also "peel off" or slide away from the fielder and thereby avoid altering the fielder's play, and
  3. Sliding legally is a GUARANTEED way of avoiding an FPSR violation

In this regard (only), FPSR reminds me of the prohibition on F1 throwing to an unoccupied base from the rubber. It's too easy to forget that there's an exception and consequently enforce the rule incorrectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maven said:

It's not cut and dried at all, because there's an "exception." Yes, I can read the first sentence, but the rule has more than that. When read properly, the NCAA rule is equivalent to the FED rule (they differ on details of a legal slide):

  1. FPSR adds additional constraints on a legal slide, and
  2. Runners are NOT required to slide: they may also "peel off" or slide away from the fielder and thereby avoid altering the fielder's play, and
  3. Sliding legally is a GUARANTEED way of avoiding an FPSR violation

In this regard (only), FPSR reminds me of the prohibition on F1 throwing to an unoccupied base from the rubber. It's too easy to forget that there's an exception and consequently enforce the rule incorrectly.

But it is cut and dried though...if the runner slides to or through the base, it's nothing every time...going in standing up to the base is a violation. Guys over think it. It's happening ALL over baseball now. I also wish the federation would offer an interpretation on it too. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@johnnyg08 Thanks for posting the whole collegiate rule.  I wish the NFHS rule book had the first two sentences of the college rule.  NFHS 8-4-2-b leaves it entirely ambiguous as to the intent as a safey rule that does not require the defense to have had a chance at a double play:

Quote

 

8-4-2-b: [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 in 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, slide must be legal...

 

Why did they state #2 like that?  Because that is what gets thrown back at you by every coach "They aren't required to slide".  No coach but their only other option is 8-4-2-b-1: slide away, or avoid contact...

Can we also tell NFHS coaches that the Collegiate standard is also the standard for NFHS?  it's how they teach it here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Can we also tell NFHS coaches that the Collegiate standard is also the standard for NFHS?  it's how they teach it here.

I strongly discourage mentioning that. It's irrelevant, and coach is likely to point that out in no uncertain terms.

That's not very useful for most umpires, who don't start with NCAA and only then start working FED.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, agdz59 said:

@johnnyg08 Thanks for posting the whole collegiate rule.  I wish the NFHS rule book had the first two sentences of the college rule.  NFHS 8-4-2-b leaves it entirely ambiguous as to the intent as a safey rule that does not require the defense to have had a chance at a double play:

Why did they state #2 like that?  Because that is what gets thrown back at you by every coach "They aren't required to slide".  No coach but there only other option is 8-4-2-b-1: slide away, or avoid contact...

Can we also tell NFHS coaches that the Collegiate standard is also the standard for NFHS?  it's how they teach it here.

 

Yeah, this isn't an NFHS thread...but the rule could use some fine tuning at that level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Does the EXCEPTION NOT  apply?

I don't think so in this play. I see the runner going directly into the fielder & the base. The exception states that the runner slide or run in a directly away from the fielder. I guess I don't see the exception applying here.

Screen Shot 2021-06-22 at 11.59.51 AM.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Does the EXCEPTION NOT  apply?

Not in the CWS play. He neither slid/ran away from the fielder, nor avoided contacting the fielder.

Note that the applicability of FPSR (both NCAA and FED) does NOT depend on how likely a double play is. (I've heard umpires invoke and coaches appeal to this non-existent condition to justify not calling FPSR.) It is therefore different from ordinary INT, which DOES depend on the possibility of a DP before we can properly call out the BR. 

Calling the BR out is part of the penalty for FPSR, no judgment involved. Think of it like sending other runners back—we don't have to judge whether that runner would have advanced anyway. Both NCAA and FED are that serious about protecting middle infielders.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's an example of a compliant runner on an NCAA force play...not the runner running in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact OR altering the play of the infielder. 

 

Nothing to do with this play (however, great video @johnnyg08 ) ....  but why am I seeing so many base umpires (and plate umpires too for that matter) doing these weird body-twisting out mechanics ... please stop

:rantoff:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, maven said:

Not in the CWS play. He neither slid/ran away from the fielder, nor avoided contacting the fielder.

Note that the applicability of FPSR (both NCAA and FED) does NOT depend on how likely a double play is. (I've heard umpires invoke and coaches appeal to this non-existent condition to justify not calling FPSR.) It is therefore different from ordinary INT, which DOES depend on the possibility of a DP before we can properly call out the BR. 

Calling the BR out is part of the penalty for FPSR, no judgment involved. Think of it like sending other runners back—we don't have to judge whether that runner would have advanced anyway. Both NCAA and FED are that serious about protecting middle infielders.

I get all that!  But what are we protecting them from here?  Rhetorical question 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I don't think so in this play. I see the runner going directly into the fielder & the base. The exception states that the runner slide or run in a directly away from the fielder. I guess I don't see the exception applying here.

Screen Shot 2021-06-22 at 11.59.51 AM.jpg

The fielder is on one side of the bag reaching OVER the other side to tag the runner.  How much further does he have to go to avoid?  Not to mention the FORCE OUT was already accomplished!  I'm willing to bet  the ump in question will NEVER call that again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Nothing to do with this play (however, great video @johnnyg08 ) ....  but why am I seeing so many base umpires (and plate umpires too for that matter) doing these weird body-twisting out mechanics ... please stop

:rantoff:

Happens when they are trying to sell something nobody is buying!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tborze said:

I get all that!  But what are we protecting them from here?  Rhetorical question 

It's a fair question (the rhetorical point is: there's nothing to protect on this play).

But that's not the purpose of a safety rule. It's a deterrent for all runners to target middle infielders.

The rule aims to get runners in the habit of sliding legally. We enforce it to protect all fielders, even on plays where they aren't in fact threatened. We penalize risky behavior, even when the risk in some particular case is minimal (such as speeding).

Big penalty = big deterrent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tborze said:

The fielder is on one side of the bag reaching OVER the other side to tag the runner.  How much further does he have to go to avoid?  Not to mention the FORCE OUT was already accomplished!  I'm willing to bet  the ump in question will NEVER call that again. 

I bet he does...

It went to replay and the call was confirmed by the NCAA, which included the secretary/rules editor. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tborze said:

The fielder is on one side of the bag reaching OVER the other side to tag the runner.  How much further does he have to go to avoid?  Not to mention the FORCE OUT was already accomplished!  I'm willing to bet  the ump in question will NEVER call that again. 

Why not? The college rule -  right there in the first two sentences - says 1: this is a safety rule and 2: whether a double play is possible is irrelevant.  

I'll call that in college and high school all day long. It was textbook.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tborze said:

The fielder is on one side of the bag reaching OVER the other side to tag the runner.  How much further does he have to go to avoid?  Not to mention the FORCE OUT was already accomplished!  I'm willing to bet  the ump in question will NEVER call that again. 

it's been said already, but I'll pile on here ....  the first 2 sentences of the rule confirm this play is TEXTBOOK FPSR...  He'll call that ANY DAY, every day ... it's an easy call.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.






×
×
  • Create New...