FPSR Rules Analysis (NFHS)

[Thunderheads]

On 2/6/2022 at 6:48 PM, 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. 

 

I've got nothing here.  Now, I don't do college, but ...for HS, this is nothing ...it's a dropped ball tag by F2...

[NavyBlue]

Conbo61, I see your point in your tricky scenario.  You have R1 a step or two away from 2B when he becomes out (now a retired runner) and the thrown ball hits him.  I could see the calling of FPSR.  Now back the runner up 10 feet, 20 feet and the thrown ball hits him.  Heck, R1 fell down and he's 50 feet away and gets hit.  When does him getting hit transition from FPSR violation, to retired runner interference, or to maybe nothing at all?

 

[johnnyg08]

I don't love the "retired runner" bit...Why?...Because nearly all FSPR violations involve a retired R1. 

[Senor Azul]

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. 

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)

From the 2016 BRD (section 350, p. 236):

Play 217-350:  R1 stealing. B1 grounds slowly to F6, whose throw to second is not in time. R1 then executes a pop-up slide while F6 is on top of the base, preventing the second baseman from throwing to first. Ruling: In FED, R1 is out, but BR goes to first...

Note 336:  Since R1 beat the throw, no double play is possible. In FED, then, only the interfering runner can be out. It’s simply interference by a runner (one is out), not a retired runner (two would be out).

[SH0102]

I have to politely disagree here.  Everyone saying you can't call FPSR because the fielder wasn't on the bag or bobbled the ball.  But you are completely ignoring the safety part of the rule.  The rule explicitly says that the double play does not have to be likely or even possible to call FPSR, and there is no caveat that R1 must be out as well.

The simple question is, was there a play at the base on a forced runner?  (throwing to attempt the out is a play)  If so, the runner MUST slide legally or peel away.  The 11 year old who can't catch the ball well or line up his feet well does not absolve the runner of his OBLIGATIONS.

Now, if the ball clearly beats the runner, the SS misses it and has to leave the bag to go get it, then sure, coming in standing doesn't need to be called because there is no safety issue.  But if the fielder is in the vicinity of the base attempting to make a play (catch ball, throw ball, make tag, step on the bag), the runner is one who must follow the rules, and as such, must be called.  

You can't look at it and say, well F6 missed the base by a step and a half so the runner can do what he wants because they didn't get him out.  Corrollary...if a fielder attempts to tag a runner passing by and misses, then heaves the ball into the stands, is it 2 from the throw or pitch?  Throw...why?  Because the attempt to make an out is a play.  Force PLAY slide rule...if there is a force PLAY, runner must slide legally or get out of the way.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

 

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.

I must be missing something. Here's the play I was addressing, quoted in my post above: "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."

This seems to me to be a play at 2B.

[Kevin_K]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

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. 

For the bolded part - the FPSR allows for the runner to be upright if they do not alter the play. I do not think the runner altered the play illegally. I believe F2 failed to make the play he intended by failing to securely tag the runner.

 

Using your scenario at 2B....

F6 receives the ball on inside of the baseline (closer to HP) between 1B and 2B. He does not touch 2B. R1 is running on the outfield side of the baseline and F6 goes to tag him, never making any attempt to touch 2B. 

The runner does not veer from his path. He does not slide illegally. He makes no move to engage with F6. The only contact occurs when F6 tags the runner. What has the runner done to violate FPSR?

I still believe that I would have a hard time invoking FPSR without regard to the base in this particular set of circumstances. I do not see the actions of the runner illegally altering the play. I see a poor set of decisions made by the fielder that should not be rewarded. No one should misinterpret my words to mean that I would never call a violation on FPSR because I have and I will continue to do so when the circumstances warrant such a call.

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, maven said:

I must be missing something. Here's the play I was addressing, quoted in my post above: "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."

This seems to me to be a play at 2B.

I was referring to the F4 bobble and his throw hits the runner in the back. 

[SH0102]

4 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

For the bolded part - the FPSR allows for the runner to be upright if they do not alter the play. I do not think the runner altered the play illegally. I believe F2 failed to make the play he intended by failing to securely tag the runner.

 

Using your scenario at 2B....

F6 receives the ball on inside of the baseline (closer to HP) between 1B and 2B. He does not touch 2B. R1 is running on the outfield side of the baseline and F6 goes to tag him, never making any attempt to touch 2B. 

The runner does not veer from his path. He does not slide illegally. He makes no move to engage with F6. The only contact occurs when F6 tags the runner. What has the runner done to violate FPSR?

I still believe that I would have a hard time invoking FPSR without regard to the base in this particular set of circumstances. I do not see the actions of the runner illegally altering the play. I see a poor set of decisions made by the fielder that should not be rewarded. No one should misinterpret my words to mean that I would never call a violation on FPSR because I have and I will continue to do so when the circumstances warrant such a call.

So in your opinion, we should be asking the kids/runners to make a determination when coming into 2nd (or 3rd or home) on a force play as to whether they may or may not alter the play if they don't slide?  By that logic, every single play should be argued because they will never think they are altering the play unless they take out the fielder.

How about the runner just does what they are obligated to do?  What they should be coached to do?  If there is a play being made at 2nd base, slide, and slide legally.  If you are out by a good amount, peel away from the fielder or get down.  

The rule does not have caveats for the quality of throw to the fielder, whether R1 is out or not, etc.

If a play is being made, they must get down (or get out of the way).  The only time I can think they can stand when a play is made at 2nd is when the play was so far ahead of R1 that they can see the fielder leave the vicinity to track down the ball before they attempt to slide.  So I am 20 feet away preparing to slide and see a bad throw and the fielder leaving the vicinity of the base, I can stay standing or try to go to 3rd of course if the throw is that bad.  But if the fielder is anywhere near the base, bobbled ball, no chance at double play, etc, it matters not.  They must slide legally or veer away. End of story

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, NavyBlue said:

Conbo61, I see your point in your tricky scenario.  You have R1 a step or two away from 2B when he becomes out (now a retired runner) and the thrown ball hits him.  I could see the calling of FPSR.  Now back the runner up 10 feet, 20 feet and the thrown ball hits him.  Heck, R1 fell down and he's 50 feet away and gets hit.  When does him getting hit transition from FPSR violation, to retired runner interference, or to maybe nothing at all?

 

There's a specific case play on this where R1 is "less than jhalfway" to second -- NOT a FPSR violation and play the bounce.

 

Left open is at what point do R1's actions become a FPSR violation -- the most common answer by those who have been around is "the point at which R1 could reasonably be expected to begin his slide"

[johnnyg08]

47 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

So in your opinion, we should be asking the kids/runners to make a determination when coming into 2nd (or 3rd or home) on a force play as to whether they may or may not alter the play if they don't slide?  By that logic, every single play should be argued because they will never think they are altering the play unless they take out the fielder.

How about the runner just does what they are obligated to do?  What they should be coached to do?  If there is a play being made at 2nd base, slide, and slide legally.  If you are out by a good amount, peel away from the fielder or get down.  

The rule does not have caveats for the quality of throw to the fielder, whether R1 is out or not, etc.

If a play is being made, they must get down (or get out of the way).  The only time I can think they can stand when a play is made at 2nd is when the play was so far ahead of R1 that they can see the fielder leave the vicinity to track down the ball before they attempt to slide.  So I am 20 feet away preparing to slide and see a bad throw and the fielder leaving the vicinity of the base, I can stay standing or try to go to 3rd of course if the throw is that bad.  But if the fielder is anywhere near the base, bobbled ball, no chance at double play, etc, it matters not.  They must slide legally or veer away. End of story

I agree with this...which is why I believe Runner Interference is an automatic dead ball....it's not a "wait and see" if the defense made the play or not, like and "and one" in basketball. If that were the case, runners would be instructed to interfere every time and see if it impacted the play or not. 

I lean in your direction...get down or get out of the way especially in the vicinity of the base....it seems like it should be pretty easy to coach...and if you're less than half way....then definitely just get out of the way. 

A play that is maybe a hair more likely than the F4 to F6 example...might be a 3-6-3 DP attempt where the throw from F3 hit R1 in the back or F3 attempts to throw over the top of R1 and air mails it into LF.

 

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

For the bolded part - the FPSR allows for the runner to be upright if they do not alter the play. I do not think the runner altered the play illegally. I believe F2 failed to make the play he intended by failing to securely tag the runner.

 

Using your scenario at 2B....

F6 receives the ball on inside of the baseline (closer to HP) between 1B and 2B. He does not touch 2B. R1 is running on the outfield side of the baseline and F6 goes to tag him, never making any attempt to touch 2B. 

The runner does not veer from his path. He does not slide illegally. He makes no move to engage with F6. The only contact occurs when F6 tags the runner. What has the runner done to violate FPSR?

I still believe that I would have a hard time invoking FPSR without regard to the base in this particular set of circumstances. I do not see the actions of the runner illegally altering the play. I see a poor set of decisions made by the fielder that should not be rewarded. No one should misinterpret my words to mean that I would never call a violation on FPSR because I have and I will continue to do so when the circumstances warrant such a call.

I'm with @Kevin_K on this.  THERE ARE circumstances where standing up doesn't interfere.  We need to be good enough to determine that  

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

So in your opinion, we should be asking the kids/runners to make a determination when coming into 2nd (or 3rd or home) on a force play as to whether they may or may not alter the play if they don't slide?  By that logic, every single play should be argued because they will never think they are altering the play unless they take out the fielder.

How about the runner just does what they are obligated to do?  What they should be coached to do?  If there is a play being made at 2nd base, slide, and slide legally.  If you are out by a good amount, peel away from the fielder or get down.  

The rule does not have caveats for the quality of throw to the fielder, whether R1 is out or not, etc.

If a play is being made, they must get down (or get out of the way).  The only time I can think they can stand when a play is made at 2nd is when the play was so far ahead of R1 that they can see the fielder leave the vicinity to track down the ball before they attempt to slide.  So I am 20 feet away preparing to slide and see a bad throw and the fielder leaving the vicinity of the base, I can stay standing or try to go to 3rd of course if the throw is that bad.  But if the fielder is anywhere near the base, bobbled ball, no chance at double play, etc, it matters not.  They must slide legally or veer away. End of story

Will I agree with most of this, like I said above, there ARE certain circumstances, and the bold can't be a 'rubber stamp' to call this.

52 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I agree with this...which is why I believe Runner Interference is an automatic dead ball....it's not a "wait and see" if the defense made the play or not, like and "and one" in basketball. If that were the case, runners would be instructed to interfere every time and see if it impacted the play or not. 

I lean in your direction...get down or get out of the way especially in the vicinity of the base....it seems like it should be pretty easy to coach...and if you're less than half way....then definitely just get out of the way. 

A play that is maybe a hair more likely than the F4 to F6 example...might be a 3-6-3 DP attempt where the throw from F3 hit R1 in the back or F3 attempts to throw over the top of R1 and air mails it into LF.

 

I agree with this for the most part.  Now, we've found pretty good evidence of the PREFERENCE for calling this, (slide or veer) but NFHS still uses "a runner need not slide" .... and until there are words that say "may not go into second base standing up on a force play situation" .... there STILL CAN BE certain circumstances where it can happen and not have FPSR/INT (certain meaning VERY FEW, but it could happen).  Again, this separates the umpires from the 'good umpires'  

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I agree with this for the most part.  Now, we've found pretty good evidence of the PREFERENCE for calling this, (slide or veer) but NFHS still uses "a runner need not slide" .... and until there are words that say "may not go into second base standing up on a force play situation" .... there STILL CAN BE certain circumstances where it can happen and not have FPSR/INT (certain meaning VERY FEW, but it could happen).  Again, this separates the umpires from the 'good umpires'  

It does indeed say that, but we shouldn't ignore the definitions portion of the rule book where a "slide" is defined and 8-4-2b is cross referenced, which is force play slide. Not arguing....just sayin' 
 

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).

[Kevin_K]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

So in your opinion, we should be asking the kids/runners to make a determination when coming into 2nd (or 3rd or home) on a force play as to whether they may or may not alter the play if they don't slide?  By that logic, every single play should be argued because they will never think they are altering the play unless they take out the fielder.

How about the runner just does what they are obligated to do?  What they should be coached to do?  If there is a play being made at 2nd base, slide, and slide legally.  If you are out by a good amount, peel away from the fielder or get down.  

The rule does not have caveats for the quality of throw to the fielder, whether R1 is out or not, etc.

If a play is being made, they must get down (or get out of the way).  The only time I can think they can stand when a play is made at 2nd is when the play was so far ahead of R1 that they can see the fielder leave the vicinity to track down the ball before they attempt to slide.  So I am 20 feet away preparing to slide and see a bad throw and the fielder leaving the vicinity of the base, I can stay standing or try to go to 3rd of course if the throw is that bad.  But if the fielder is anywhere near the base, bobbled ball, no chance at double play, etc, it matters not.  They must slide legally or veer away. End of story

I think there is more to the play than black and white, as @Thunderheads implies. Things happen on a ball field where we have to umpire with the rule book as well as by the rule book.

I understand why others may see this as FPSR because there is some contact and the runner does not slide. Sliding is never required. Not sliding will raise the attention of DHC as well as the umpiring crew, but it does not automatically move the play into a FPSR violation. Contact does not necessarily mean the play was altered, but, like not sliding, it raises awareness of a potential violation. 

 

[Thunderheads]

10 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

It does indeed say that, but we shouldn't ignore the definitions portion of the rule book where a "slide" is defined and 8-4-2b is cross referenced, which is force play slide. Not arguing....just sayin' 
 

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).

You're good @johnnyg08 ...I understand.   See the word "MAY" .... and then see what I said .... basically, nowhere does it say you CAN'T go in standing up.  That's my only point.  Like you said earlier, "it could be clearer" ...

ON EDIT: Yes, my example used the word "MAY" also ... my fault.  More specifically, until NFHS uses the words that say YOU CAN'T go into second standing on a force play, there's going to be some room for interpretation in certain scenarios

[GreyhoundAggie]

I like a no call on the play at home after watching it a few times. Kevin makes some great comments. The catcher makes a failed taq attempt. The runner didn't do anything extra to knock the ball out, and he didn't alter the play, the catcher caused that.

The runner is not required to slide, and going in standing up is not an automatic FPSR depending on how the play unfolds. I have trouble penalizing the runner here.

[maven]

3 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I was referring to the F4 bobble and his throw hits the runner in the back. 

Also a play (= a bona fide attempt to retire a runner).

And, though INT with a thrown ball has to be intentional,  for me, going into a base standing on a force play is sufficient evidence of intent to hinder.

[Thunderheads]

9 minutes ago, maven said:

Also a play (= a bona fide attempt to retire a runner).

And, though INT with a thrown ball has to be intentional,  for me, going into a base standing on a force play is sufficient evidence of intent to hinder.

I understand where you're going, but that's not sufficient for me.  That would be a 'double-play' plus an ejection  

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

You're good @johnnyg08 ...I understand.   See the word "MAY" .... and then see what I said .... basically, nowhere does it say you CAN'T go in standing up.  That's my only point.  Like you said earlier, "it could be clearer" ...

ON EDIT: Yes, my example used the word "MAY" also ... my fault.  More specifically, until NFHS uses the words that say YOU CAN'T go into second standing on a force play, there's going to be some room for interpretation in certain scenarios

I understand...but it does not say "may go directly into the base or toward the fielder standing up" as an option. It says that runner may "slide or run in a direction away" two options. 

Do you ever get to a point in studying rules...that you wish you'd never starting heading down a path? 

 

 

[Richvee]

12 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

The runner does not veer from his path. He does not slide illegally. He makes no move to engage with F6. The only contact occurs when F6 tags the runner. What has the runner done to violate FPSR?

Making a move to engage the fielder is irrelevant. FPSR is not about intent. I know you know that. 

What if the fielder didn’t attempt a tag and took a step to try to tag the base, and in doing so gets hit by the runner coming in standing up? Would you have INT there?  I don’t see how you couldn’t.  

I don’t see why the method the fielder uses to get the force out should matter. The runner didn’t slide legally, he didn’t veer away from the fielder, therefore, by choosing to go in standing up, anything he does that alters the play is FPSR, including causing the ball to fall out of the fielder’s glove on a tag attempt. If he slides, the fielder applies a tag and the ball comes  loose, THEN, we have nothing. The fact that he went in standing means almost anything that happens that involves the runner and the fielder and adversely effects the fielder is a FPS violation. 

[Thunderheads]

16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I understand...but it does not say "may go directly into the base or toward the fielder standing up" as an option. It says that runner may "slide or run in a direction away" two options. 

Do you ever get to a point in studying rules...that you wish you'd never starting heading down a path? 

 

 

That's great @johnnyg08!  No, I get it ...don't get me wrong, we're not really that far off.  Let me put it this way ...I've learned from this site (can't remember who) but basically the comment is "if it doesn't say you CAN'T, then it must be legal"  (or did I screw that up)  

YES!!  Every year something sends me down a spiral path to nowhere! 🤣

[johnnyg08]

25 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I've learned from this site (can't remember who) but basically the comment is "if it doesn't say you CAN'T, then it must be legal"  (or did I screw that up)  

No, I don't think you screwed it up. Due to this site it's now a common mantra that is a good guide to follow. 

That being said, I feel that it is covered in the Slide portion of the definitions. (Something I missed initially because the unofficial electronic rule book "pdf" I was using cut that part out of the book! 🙂

I wish it would be specifically stated in 8-4-2b...but it's not...but it is cross referenced in the definitions:

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)

I really think that this is the most important piece of the rule because it helps us interpret what's illegal in 8-4-2b...is "Slide" in 2-32 none of these things are listed as prohibitions in 8-4-2b, and we agree that none of them are legal. (Font unintentionally larger...not intended to imply anything more or less)

 

 

[Thunderheads]

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

What if the fielder didn’t attempt a tag and took a step to try to tag the base, and in doing so gets hit by the runner coming in standing up? Would you have INT there?  I don’t see how you couldn’t.  

First of all, great stuff @Richvee!   This quote above IS different, and sure, that's FPSR.

 

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

I don’t see why the method the fielder uses to get the force out should matter. The runner didn’t slide legally, he didn’t veer away from the fielder, therefore, by choosing to go in standing up, anything he does that alters the play is FPSR, including causing the ball to fall out of the fielder’s glove on a tag attempt. If he slides, the fielder applies a tag and the ball comes  loose, THEN, we have nothing. The fact that he went in standing means almost anything that happens that involves the runner and the fielder and adversely effects the fielder is a FPS violation. 

So .... if he slides and the fielder drops the ball, that's nothing.  But if he goes in standing and the fielder drops the ball, that's FPSR?   The fielder dropping the ball isn't an adverse effect, that's an error (doesn't matter what the runner is doing)  The fielder is tagging a runner, the runner isn't 'altering' that play or his ability to make said play.

Now, you can use that, and call that, but ... that explanation is going to get you an ejection also.  And let me be very clear, ... I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply saying there ARE certain circumstances where going in standing up is NOT FPSR.  It's very few, but they are there.

[johnnyg08]

15 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I'm simply saying there ARE certain circumstances where going in standing up is NOT FPSR.  It's very few, but they are there.

I agree with that it's not absolute. BUT...I think many umpires will use this as a crutch to not call it. Too many times, umpires look for reasons to not call something...be it lack of confidence, not wanting to get yelled at, personal beliefs on what they think the rule would be, not wanting to cause controversy, or anything else....when things like this must absolutely be called. 

The more we grab this stuff, the more teams will adjust. It starts locally. 

[Thunderheads]

17 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I agree with that it's not absolute. BUT...I think many umpires will use this as a crutch to not call it. Too many times, umpires look for reasons to not call something...be it lack of confidence, not wanting to get yelled at, personal beliefs on what they think the rule would be, not wanting to cause controversy, or anything else....when things like this must absolutely be called. 

The more we grab this stuff, the more teams will adjust. It starts locally. 

That's a great point!  And, I've said it before .... these calls call for discretion and judgement, and where we make the big bucks, separating the "umpires" from the "GOOD umpires"