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 748 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

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

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

I think it is perfectly clear. Even after the bolded part it says “on a force play, does not slide…”.  A runner always has two options on a force play. Slide legally or peel off.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

I think it is perfectly clear. Even after the bolded part it says “on a force play, does not slide…”.  A runner always has two options on a force play. Slide legally or peel off.  

I agree with you...but it could be clearer...it doesn't specifically say what you wrote. I'm not writing this to be an ass...just that it doesn't say that so an newer umpire or coach is going to say "I can't find that in the book" Where does it say "slide or peel off"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2019 NFHS Rule 2

SECTION 32 SLIDE

ART. 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).

Also see FED Case Book Play 2.32.2 Situation A where it describes as legal the two options of sliding or running away.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

2019 NFHS Rule 2

SECTION 32 SLIDE

ART. 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).

Also see FED Case Book Play 2.32.2 Situation A where it describes as legal the two options of sliding or running away.

That's pretty clear! Nicely done!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always taught FPSR upside down. Rather than focus on what's prohibited, look at what the rule is trying to get runners to do. A runner who slides legally AND directly into the base is never guilty of FPSR. That's what the rule wants runners to do. Another option is peeling off, but this too must be done legally (or, think of it as peeling off, and not into, the fielder).

The other feature I point out is that FPSR is an enhanced INT rule: the constraints on sliding are stronger, and the notion of hindrance expanded to include any alteration of play. These heightened requirements on the offense aim to protect a (potentially) vulnerable fielder. But they are not an arbitrary demand, or a "must slide" rule, or any of the other misconceptions swirling around the rule (partly, if not primarily, because instructors attempt to "simplify" the rule).

Any other action besides legally sliding or peeling off at a base is liable to be a FPSR violation, including going in standing. BUT: it's not automatic. Obviously, if the fielder fielding the batted ball boots it and makes no throw (to 2B or wherever), then it won't matter what the runner does. 

A non-legally-sliding runner who makes contact OR alters the play of the fielder at the base is guilty of FPSR. Contact is easy to define; altering the play of the fielder is not much harder. Did he have to do something different because the runner was there, such as playing around him? Then the runner altered his play. Sure that's a judgment call, but if we know what we're looking for, not that hard. Every possible advantage to the defense.

Is it possible for a runner going in standing up NOT to make contact or alter the play of the fielder? Yes, here's another example (besides there being no play): bases loaded, 0 out, infield playing in. Hard grounder to F4, who fields it and throws to F6 running to 2B and toward RF. It's pretty obvious that when F6 makes his relay, he'll be 10 feet behind 2B, and R1 will still be 30 feet from 2B (and in no position to slide). F6 throws easily around R1 in the baseline, and R1 goes into 2B standing up. 

In that play, there's no FPSR violation (and, since it's a pretty easy DP, nobody would be looking for one). 1 run would score; if we called FPSR and sent R3 back, that would be hard to defend (because it's not supported by the rule, not because a coach would complain about it).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maven said:

I've always taught FPSR upside down. Rather than focus on what's prohibited, look at what the rule is trying to get runners to do. A runner who slides legally AND directly into the base is never guilty of FPSR. That's what the rule wants runners to do. Another option is peeling off, but this too must be done legally (or, think of it as peeling off, and not into, the fielder).

The other feature I point out is that FPSR is an enhanced INT rule: the constraints on sliding are stronger, and the notion of hindrance expanded to include any alteration of play. These heightened requirements on the offense aim to protect a (potentially) vulnerable fielder. But they are not an arbitrary demand, or a "must slide" rule, or any of the other misconceptions swirling around the rule (partly, if not primarily, because instructors attempt to "simplify" the rule).

Any other action besides legally sliding or peeling off at a base is liable to be a FPSR violation, including going in standing. BUT: it's not automatic. Obviously, if the fielder fielding the batted ball boots it and makes no throw (to 2B or wherever), then it won't matter what the runner does. 

A non-legally-sliding runner who makes contact OR alters the play of the fielder at the base is guilty of FPSR. Contact is easy to define; altering the play of the fielder is not much harder. Did he have to do something different because the runner was there, such as playing around him? Then the runner altered his play. Sure that's a judgment call, but if we know what we're looking for, not that hard. Every possible advantage to the defense.

Is it possible for a runner going in standing up NOT to make contact or alter the play of the fielder? Yes, here's another example (besides there being no play): bases loaded, 0 out, infield playing in. Hard grounder to F4, who fields it and throws to F6 running to 2B and toward RF. It's pretty obvious that when F6 makes his relay, he'll be 10 feet behind 2B, and R1 will still be 30 feet from 2B (and in no position to slide). F6 throws easily around R1 in the baseline, and R1 goes into 2B standing up. 

In that play, there's no FPSR violation (and, since it's a pretty easy DP, nobody would be looking for one). 1 run would score; if we called FPSR and sent R3 back, that would be hard to defend (because it's not supported by the rule, not because a coach would complain about it).

Appreciate the insight. Thanks for chiming in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far everything seems to center on does R1 interfere with the throw of F6. I’d like to tweak this a bit and get a better understanding of a different scenario for Fed. 
 

R1, ground ball to F4. Bobbles it a bit (or maybe the runner was moving on the pitch). F4 makes a throw to F6 who is standing on the base. Runner goes in standing up, and that initial throw hits him in the back when he’s a step or two from the bag. What’s the rule on that one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said:

and that initial throw [From F4] hits him in the back when he’s a step or two from the bag. What’s the rule on that one? 

Just to make sure I'm understanding...is that the initial throw from F4 to F6 in an attempt to retire R1 at 2b, hits R1 in the back who went in standing to 2b? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

R1, ground ball to F4. Bobbles it a bit (or maybe the runner was moving on the pitch). F4 makes a throw to F6 who is standing on the base. Runner goes in standing up, and that initial throw hits him in the back when he’s a step or two from the bag. What’s the rule on that one? 

Well, the rule is the same, but you're asking about the ruling.

I believe that most folks would have no trouble ruling on this play if asked the proper question, namely: did the runner's choice to go in standing alter the play of F6?

Alternatively, think of it this way: had the runner slid or peeled off legally, would the result have been the same? Any benefit of the doubt there to the defense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

So far everything seems to center on does R1 interfere with the throw of F6. I’d like to tweak this a bit and get a better understanding of a different scenario for Fed. 
 

R1, ground ball to F4. Bobbles it a bit (or maybe the runner was moving on the pitch). F4 makes a throw to F6 who is standing on the base. Runner goes in standing up, and that initial throw hits him in the back when he’s a step or two from the bag. What’s the rule on that one? 

Was it a force play?  Did R1 (legally) slide or veer off? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, maven said:

Well, the rule is the same, but you're asking about the ruling.

I believe that most folks would have no trouble ruling on this play if asked the proper question, namely: did the runner's choice to go in standing alter the play of F6?

Alternatively, think of it this way: had the runner slid or peeled off legally, would the result have been the same? Any benefit of the doubt there to the defense.

I answer no. It didn't, because F6 never had a play. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

What about this play? (NFHS)

This is a force play at home plate. The runner does not slide or run away and appears to alter the play of the catcher. 

 

So this clip is in the second video you posted above, and the narrator says this ISN’T FPSR because “ the runner didn’t alter the play if F2”. 
Huh? Can some explain to how R3 didn’t alter this play??? He didn’t slide legally, he didn’t veer, and from what can tell, his contact with F2 not only alters F2 fielding, it knocks the ball clear out of his glove. How is this not FPSR?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So this clip is in the second video you posted above, and the narrator says this ISN’T FPSR because “ the runner didn’t alter the play if F2”. 
Huh? Can some explain to how R3 didn’t alter this play??? He didn’t slide legally, he didn’t veer, and from what can tell, his contact with F2 not only alters F2 fielding, it knocks the ball clear out of his glove. How is this not FPSR?  

You're right with me...it's exactly why I pulled that clip. It seems to fit the requirements...waiting to read what others think. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Richvee & @johnnyg08 - I think I would have a hard time calling the FPSR violation on the play at HP.

F2 has possession of the ball as R3 approached the plate. F2 tags F3 even though he could have easily stepped on HP for the out. So far, that doesn't seem as though R3's actions have violated any principle of the FPSR since F2 willingly waited for R3 to arrive at HP. When F2 decides to tag R3, who veered (maybe too strong a word) inside the baseline, F2 moved into R3 instigating contact. It doesn't seem as though F2's approach to the play was altered. It actually seems as though that was his plan the entire time.

Since F2 initiated contact, how do we penalize R3?

Of course, this is all with the benefit of frame by frame analysis from the comfort of my computer desk in my home, so perhaps I am over analyzing it as well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

@Richvee & @johnnyg08 - I think I would have a hard time calling the FPSR violation on the play at HP.

F2 has possession of the ball as R3 approached the plate. F2 tags F3 even though he could have easily stepped on HP for the out. So far, that doesn't seem as though R3's actions have violated any principle of the FPSR since F2 willingly waited for R3 to arrive at HP. When F2 decides to tag R3, who veered (maybe too strong a word) inside the baseline, F2 moved into R3 instigating contact. It doesn't seem as though F2's approach to the play was altered. It actually seems as though that was his plan the entire time.

Since F2 initiated contact, how do we penalize R3?

Of course, this is all with the benefit of frame by frame analysis from the comfort of my computer desk in my home, so perhaps I am over analyzing it as well.

Good one for discussion. Valid points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

@Richvee & @johnnyg08 - I think I would have a hard time calling the FPSR violation on the play at HP.

F2 has possession of the ball as R3 approached the plate. F2 tags F3 even though he could have easily stepped on HP for the out. So far, that doesn't seem as though R3's actions have violated any principle of the FPSR since F2 willingly waited for R3 to arrive at HP. When F2 decides to tag R3, who veered (maybe too strong a word) inside the baseline, F2 moved into R3 instigating contact. It doesn't seem as though F2's approach to the play was altered. It actually seems as though that was his plan the entire time.

Since F2 initiated contact, how do we penalize R3?

Of course, this is all with the benefit of frame by frame analysis from the comfort of my computer desk in my home, so perhaps I am over analyzing it as well.

I see your point, but by definition I think   he needs to slide or be liable for anything he does ( or causes to happen)  that changes the play …intentionally or not.  Let’s move the play to 2B. R2 comes in standing. The throw to f6 is a little off timing and f6 crosses the bag and catches the ball after he’s off 2B, and puts  a tag on r2 and the ball pops loose. Hasn’t the play been altered by a non sliding r2? It seems to me that by definition that’s a  violation of FPSR.  I’m assuming you would  not call it at 2B  either, since both are force plays and should be officiated the same?  I think either call can be supported on this odd play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happened to my son, he was on first. R/B hits a squibber to F5. My son took off on the pitch. F5 throws to F4, but the throw pulls F4 off the bag toward the outfield. My son gets to 2B before the ball and goes in standing up as he easily beat the throw. F4 falls as he's reaching for the throw and gets up and air mails the throw to F3. Base ump calls my son out, I request time and ask why he was called out, umpire tells me that he didn't slide on a force play so he's out. I calmly say that he doesn't need to slide and that there was no play on him as he not only beat the throw, but F4 wasn't able to make the touch. But I let it go, as this umpire is probably a freshman. Then to make things worse, the home team appeals the throw to first and claim that since my son didn't slide, they should get the double play. The umpire huddles with the 2 coaches and the PU and then comes up and bangs out our runner at 1B. After the game, I suggest that the umpire review the FPSR which the assistant coach overhears and tells me that the runner is out for not sliding on a force play and that she trains all the umpires there and knows the rules. I decided that it wasn't worth arguing and walk away. 

I don't think you can make the call unless there is really a play on R1. I think the spirit of the rule is to ensure that R1 is not trying to break up the double play, but if there isn't a first out, there isn't a double play. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tricky scenario.  Let's modify the scenario proposed by @Richvee

A bit of a hypothetical and I am not trying to play "gotcha."

Ground ball to F6, flips to F4 who steps back (toward RF) to complete the throw to F3.  R1 is coming directly into the base, but standing.  F4's throwing motion causes the ball to hit R1.

Do you enforce FPSR? Or is this a "regular" interference by a retired runner?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

This is a tricky scenario.  Let's modify the scenario proposed by @Richvee

A bit of a hypothetical and I am not trying to play "gotcha."

Ground ball to F6, flips to F4 who steps back (toward RF) to complete the throw to F3.  R1 is coming directly into the base, but standing.  F4's throwing motion causes the ball to hit R1.

Do you enforce FPSR? Or is this a "regular" interference by a retired runner?

It’s FPSR, he did not slide (or peel off) and his being upright altered the play.

There is no caveat in the rule about “as long as the fielder steps here or there” and there is nothing about “R1 must be out to enforce” (going to post before yours).

May not like the rule but it is a safety rule first and foremost; a runner may NOT go into the bag standing on a force play ATTEMPT (out or safe is irrelevant), among other things (pop up slide, etc)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

It’s FPSR, he did not slide (or peel off) and his being upright altered the play.

There is no caveat in the rule about “as long as the fielder steps here or there” and there is nothing about “R1 must be out to enforce” (going to post before yours).

May not like the rule but it is a safety rule first and foremost; a runner may NOT go into the bag standing on a force play ATTEMPT (out or safe is irrelevant), among other things (pop up slide, etc)

I did not say I didn't like the rule (I do) and fully recognize its intent.

My question was geared more toward is it FPSR or garden variety interference by a retired runner?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

I did not say I didn't like the rule (I do) and fully recognize its intent.

My question was geared more toward is it FPSR or garden variety interference by a retired runner?

Was it a force play? Yes. Did the runner do what he is required to do? No. It’s FPSR

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2022 at 4:38 PM, maven said:

Well, the rule is the same, but you're asking about the ruling.

I believe that most folks would have no trouble ruling on this play if asked the proper question, namely: did the runner's choice to go in standing alter the play of F6?

Alternatively, think of it this way: had the runner slid or peeled off legally, would the result have been the same? Any benefit of the doubt there to the defense.

 

On 2/6/2022 at 5:34 PM, Matt said:

I answer no. It didn't, because F6 never had a play. 

I'm going with Matt on this one.  If there's not play at 2nd base, you can't have FPSR, right?  Is a force play possible here, of course, but when you look at what FPSR is about, ..it starts with the play at 2nd, and without the play, (no ball) ... it's hard to call FPSR here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...