Jump to content

FPSR Rules Analysis (NFHS)


johnnyg08
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 747 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

With more and more runners going into 2B (Yes, I know you can have FPSR at bases other than 2b) standing and maybe ducking at the last second, I wanted to take a bit of a deeper dive into the rule in an effort to be crystal clear on how to umpire this play. With an FPSR violation ending a CWS game last week, I wanted to take a closer look at the NFHS verbiage around FPSR plays and the runner's requirements. 

I think there tends to be confusion around 8-4-2b-2 that states that a runner is never required to slide and 2-32-2f that states "The runner, on a force play, does not slide on the ground in a direct line between the two bases" 

Any runner is out when...

8-4-2b

"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"

 

8-4-2b-2

"Runners are never required to slide, but if a runner elects to slide, the slide must be legal (2-32-1, 2-32-2) Jumping, hurdling, & 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."

So, in the rule book, I see two distinct references requiring a runner to slide on a force play. 

My take is that 8-4-2b-2 is exclusive from 8-4-2b and 2-32-2f stating the the runner slides. 

What says the group? 

Slide (legally) or get out of the way? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Runners are never required to slide.

On all plays, if a runner does slide, the slide must be legal per the code (differs in NCAA and FED, FED rule 2-32-1&2).

On a force play, if a runner does slide, the slide must also be on a direct line between the bases.

IOW, the FPSR does NOT require runners to slide. It adds a constraint to what counts as a legal slide (direct line between bases).

So the way you want to present 8-4-2b is: ""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;"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Southwest Colorado Umpires

http://swumpires.com/rules/force-play-slide-rule-note/

Weighing the force play slide rule along with the 'runner doesn't have to slide' rule.

We’ve had two very similar incidents involving the force play slide rule, one of which ultimately resulted in an ejection. Part of the lesson here is to be careful about quoting rules to coaches out of context.

In both cases, the runner went into second base standing up. The RB does not directly address that scenario and only talks about the direction of a slide. The complicating factor is the RB states what we all know – the runner does not have to slide.

Going to the base standing up is almost certainly interference. The RB addresses that by saying he is out if he does not slide legally. Said another way, the only absolute excuse for avoiding interference is a legal slide; anything else is suspect.

An illegal slide is interference regardless of whether there is contact or the play altered.

Any other non-slide act is interference if there is contact or the play is altered. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario (other than the fielder dropping the ball) where an upright runner goes directly into the base and does not alter the play. Most fielders will not the throw the ball if the ball or their arm might hit the runner. It is the runner’s responsibility to avoid the play.

Telling a coach an upright runner who did not veer away didn’t interfere because “he doesn’t have to slide” does not work.

Also, please note if it is a very hard hit ball and R1 is about halfway between the bases at the time of the relay, there is very little the runner can do to get out of the way. In those cases, the fielder has the time and the flexibility to avoid the runner with his throw. There is no interference unless the runner intentionally gets in the way.

From: George Demetriou 4/10/19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a few times you have the middle infielder crossing second base and ending up on the INFIELD, or OUTFIELD side of second.   When this happens, and the fielder has basically cleared the runners path, then the runner going into second standing up is probably not interfering.   (I hope that made sense) ;) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Quite a few times you have the middle infielder crossing second base and ending up on the INFIELD, or OUTFIELD side of second.   When this happens, and the field has basically cleared the runners path, then the runner going into second standing up is probably not interfering.   (I hope that made sense) ;) 

Yep, I would agree with that. It puts a bit of pressure on the plate umpire to stay with the play and when that runner comes in standing or ducks his head at the last minute, it should make the spidey senses tingle

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

More illegal slide verbiage:

Slide2.jpg

The writer(s) properly used parallel construction.  In doing so, they led to the confusion we seem to be having.

It could be: The runner's does not have the lead leg and buttocks on the ground or the runner veers from a direct line between the bases during any force play slide

If we ignored the parallel construction, it could be reworded as something like: any slide during a force play is not on the ground and in a direct line between the bases."

 

The point is that the rule defines illegal slides -- it applies only when there is a slide to begin with.  It does not (or is not meant to) imply that there must be a slide, even on a force play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

The point is that the rule defines illegal slides -- it applies only when there is a slide to begin with.  It does not (or is not meant to) imply that there must be a slide, even on a force play.

That makes sense. 

So if the middle infielder unleashes a throw and it drills the R1 in the chest who is in the vicinity of 2B and running straight into 2B or the throw deflects off of his helmet out into RF as R1 comes into second base standing has R1 illegally altered the play?

Similar to the college rule, is a proper slide the only way to 100% guarantee that the runner has not illegally altered the play? 

8-4-2b

"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"

Demetriou's article from above seems to suggest yes:

"In both cases, the runner went into second base standing up. The RB does not directly address that scenario and only talks about the direction of a slide. The complicating factor is the RB states what we all know – the runner does not have to slide.

Going to the base standing up is almost certainly interference. The RB addresses that by saying he is out if he does not slide legally. Said another way, the only absolute excuse for avoiding interference is a legal slide; anything else is suspect."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Similar to the college rule, is a proper slide the only way to 100% guarantee that the runner has not illegally altered the play? 

 

 

I think that's generally accurate.  I would add "run or slide in a direction away from the fielder" to the description in both college and HS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Similar to the college rule, is a proper slide is the only way to 100% guarantee that the runner has not illegally altered the play? 

You seem to be eager to push this rule in the direction of a "must slide" rule. It is not, has never been, nor is it intended to be such.

The rule provides 2 ways for runners to comply, provided that they are sufficiently close to the base to invoke the rule at all: slide or [try to] avoid. 

Note that running/sliding away from the fielder is sufficient for trying to avoid hindering him. The rule doesn't say "avoid," which is a success term, and success is not guaranteed by the runner's bona fide attempt (because some fielders suck). The rule is not protection from sucking.

Compliance is compliance, and it doesn't come in degrees or with guarantees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maven said:

You seem to be eager to push this rule in the direction of a "must slide" rule. It is not, has never been, nor is it intended to be such.

The rule provides 2 ways for runners to comply, provided that they are sufficiently close to the base to invoke the rule at all: slide or [try to] avoid. 

Note that running/sliding away from the fielder is sufficient for trying to avoid hindering him. The rule doesn't say "avoid," which is a success term, and success is not guaranteed by the runner's bona fide attempt (because some fielders suck). The rule is not protection from sucking.

Compliance is compliance, and it doesn't come in degrees or with guarantees.

I'm not eager to push anything. But rather to try to have an expert-level understanding of the rule. 

These are questions that have been and will continue to be asked by folks around the country and through my lens, it's important to me to have an accurate and thorough understanding of the rule. 

That's all. There's no other agenda than asking to understand. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This rule is so misunderstood…just the other day I was BU and heard from B “make sure you break up the double Play if he hits the grounder”.

I wanted to say “gee coach, thanks for making my life easy on that call” but alas, I kept it to myself

In layman’s terms, by the time the runner has gotten to the point where one would normally slide, they must have either initiated a legal slide or peeled away from defender in an attempt to avoid interfering.

If they choose to go in standing straight up, they are leaving to your judgment about INT, and there is ZERO wiggle room in their favor.  If there’s a hint of INT or any doubt, benefit goes to defense.

My general principle is that if the runner truly has no desire to interfere, he has a very simple option if he doesn’t want to slide, peel off.

By going in straight up, I generally feel they are trying to hinder the DP attempt in a much less obvious way than a take-out slide.  Obviously if you’re doing a 10u rec game , their understanding of game, situations, and rules would be far less and you may not assume they have that intent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH0102 said:

This rule is so misunderstood…just the other day I was BU and heard from B “make sure you break up the double Play if he hits the grounder”.

I wanted to say “gee coach, thanks for making my life easy on that call” but alas, I kept it to myself

In layman’s terms, by the time the runner has gotten to the point where one would normally slide, they must have either initiated a legal slide or peeled away from defender in an attempt to avoid interfering.

If they choose to go in standing straight up, they are leaving to your judgment about INT, and there is ZERO wiggle room in their favor.  If there’s a hint of INT or any doubt, benefit goes to defense.

My general principle is that if the runner truly has no desire to interfere, he has a very simple option if he doesn’t want to slide, peel off.

By going in straight up, I generally feel they are trying to hinder the DP attempt in a much less obvious way than a take-out slide.  Obviously if you’re doing a 10u rec game , their understanding of game, situations, and rules would be far less and you may not assume they have that intent.

Appreciate the insight. Thanks for chiming in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 7:31 AM, Thunderheads said:

Quite a few times you have the middle infielder crossing second base and ending up on the INFIELD, or OUTFIELD side of second.   When this happens, and the fielder has basically cleared the runners path, then the runner going into second standing up is probably not interfering.   (I hope that made sense) ;) 

It makes sense, Jeff, but the college baseball wants that lack of a proper veer-off or a legal slide to be called, regardless of when or how the middle infielder makes their throw. The Rule states “to and through the bag” with a legal slide, but says nothing about when or in what relation it is to the fielder. 

I’ve already been scrutinized on this in video review this summer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

It makes sense, Jeff, but the college baseball wants that lack of a proper veer-off or a legal slide to be called, regardless of when or how the middle infielder makes their throw. The Rule states “to and through the bag” with a legal slide, but says nothing about when or in what relation it is to the fielder. 

I’ve already been scrutinized on this in video review this summer. 

Yep...but this an NFHS thread...where the rule is different (personal opinions aside) *wink* 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yep...but this an NFHS thread...where the rule is different (personal opinions aside) *wink* 

 

 

You are correct, in both ways (thread department, and rule differences). 

This isn’t an excuse, because I’m certainly guilty of it, but there are those of us who not only work in and across all three core rulesets, and their derivatives, but we have association leads, supervisors, or “engaged assigners” who emphasize we “have to get (call) that” during a game that we begin to forget the context (level) of game we’re doing at that moment, and are so eager to “not miss that”. 

This isn’t like the difference between a feint to 3B being legal or not (Fed vs all else), because even if you call it, yeah, you wear a bit of egg, but you can rectify it… a FPSR is much more difficult to rectify because it happens so quickly and there are nuances to it that only, perhaps, 3-4 participants actually see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MadMax said:

You are correct, in both ways (thread department, and rule differences). 

This isn’t an excuse, because I’m certainly guilty of it, but there are those of us who not only work in and across all three core rulesets, and their derivatives, but we have association leads, supervisors, or “engaged assigners” who emphasize we “have to get (call) that” during a game that we begin to forget the context (level) of game we’re doing at that moment, and are so eager to “not miss that”. 

This isn’t like the difference between a feint to 3B being legal or not (Fed vs all else), because even if you call it, yeah, you wear a bit of egg, but you can rectify it… a FPSR is much more difficult to rectify because it happens so quickly and there are nuances to it that only, perhaps, 3-4 participants actually see.

Agree. In my state we have NFHS (Fed) baseball & now in the summer we have American Legion baseball which plays with the NCAA FPSR. 

To say it's confusing for participants and officials is an understatement! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Yep...but this an NFHS thread...where the rule is different (personal opinions aside) *wink* 

 

 

Other than "sliding through the base and then making contact" (legal in NCAA; illegal in FED), how is the rule different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, humanbackstop19 said:

On an enforcement note, FPSR is an immediate dead ball at the time of the interference in FED, correct?  I believe it is delayed in NCAA and OBR.......maybe :HS

To the best of my knowledge, we should kill it immediately if we have it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

So, I'm coming back to this because I don't feel that we've reached a solid resolution. 

Are we allowing runners to go in standing to 2b on double play attempts? Certainly it could apply to other bases...but where we see this most often is at 2b on the front end of a double play. 

By rule, do we have grounds to get two on these plays? If so, under what grounds? Retired runner? 

Is the test merely as to whether or not he alters the play? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. johnnyg08, you posted the solution earlier with George Demetriou’s explanation of the rule. Here is the actual rule—

2019 NFHS rule 8-4-2b

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

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, 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.

A well-respected U-E umpire once posted the following—

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.

As George Demetriou and our well-respected U-E umpire stated, a runner who comes in standing up is always to be scrutinized closely.

“Going to the base standing up is almost certainly interference. The RB addresses that by saying he is out if he does not slide legally. Said another way, the only absolute excuse for avoiding interference is a legal slide; anything else is suspect.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. johnnyg08, you posted the solution earlier with George Demetriou’s explanation of the rule. Here is the actual rule—

2019 NFHS rule 8-4-2b

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

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, 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.

A well-respected U-E umpire once posted the following—

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.

As George Demetriou and our well-respected U-E umpire stated, a runner who comes in standing up is always to be scrutinized closely.

“Going to the base standing up is almost certainly interference. The RB addresses that by saying he is out if he does not slide legally. Said another way, the only absolute excuse for avoiding interference is a legal slide; anything else is suspect.”

 

Appreciate it. I wish it could be a tad clearer. I think it would help enforcement in parts of the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...