FPSR Rules Analysis (NFHS)

[Richvee]

18 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Under NFHS would we consider this a violation? 

 

I would. 

[Replacematt]

On 2/27/2022 at 1:58 AM, johnnyg08 said:

Under NFHS would we consider this a violation? 

 

I don't like the video angle for this, nor am I confident U2 had a good look. This is why I stay in deep B if at all possible, because there's a great look at the position of R1 relative to the fielder (and on a slide, a great look as to if they went directly to the base.)

If I had to make this call based on the video, I'd call it a coin-flip, because I can't tell how far F4 came off the bag and as a result if they would have had to throw around a standing R1. I'd probably call it a violation, but that's just on the best-available-evidence concept.

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

I would. 

I would also.  Again, this is where we make the big bucks, and what separates the 'umpires' from the 'good umpires'!   Here, R1 going into 2nd base standing up did impede the play

[johnnyg08]

And again...there's a way out of this for the offense. Slide (legally of course) or get out of the way. 

[Thunderheads]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

And again...there's a way out of this for the offense. Slide (legally of course) or get out of the way. 

Yup!  I wish NFHS would 'require' the slide or the VEER away in the FPSR situation.  Keep  "a runner is never required to slide", but ... require the slide/VEER in clear text on the FPSR portion of the rule.  

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Yup!  I wish NFHS would 'require' the slide or the VEER away in the FPSR situation.  Keep  "a runner is never required to slide", but ... require the slide/VEER in clear text on the FPSR portion of the rule.  

I think the NCAA has done an excellent job modifying their rule. NFHS could do the same..."On a force play, the runner must slide..." 
There are aspects of the NFHS rule that are close to that verbiage when the rules suggest:

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"

I've been in the minority in my suggestion that "Or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases" In a way I still feel that the verbiage suggests that we need to see a slide. 

Couldn't we explain like this "Coach he didn't slide in a direct line between the bases."? 

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I think the NCAA has done an excellent job modifying their rule. NFHS could do the same..."On a force play, the runner must slide..." 
There are aspects of the NFHS rule that are close to that verbiage when the rules suggest:

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"

I've been in the minority in my suggestion that "Or on a force play, does not slide in a direct line between the bases" In a way I still feel that the verbiage suggests that we need to see a slide. 

Couldn't we explain like this "Coach he didn't slide in a direct line between the bases."? 

I agree with you!  The problem is "a runner is never required to slide" always throws the monkey-wrench.  That's why my suggestion/NCAA's wording works much better (IMHO).  THEN, ...any runner under ANY condition going into a base standing up on a force play would be INT.... easy peasy  

[johnnyg08]

7 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I agree with you!  The problem is "a runner is never required to slide" always throws the monkey-wrench.  That's why my suggestion/NCAA's wording works much better (IMHO).  THEN, ...any runner under ANY condition going into a base standing up on a force play would be INT.... easy peasy  

Based on what I see in my area it is becoming more of a problem. More and more runners are going in standing. 

[Thunderheads]

6 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Based on what I see in my area it is becoming more of a problem. More and more runners are going in standing. 

ME TOO!  I saw it more last season than I can remember.

[johnnyg08]

9 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I agree with you!  The problem is "a runner is never required to slide" always throws the monkey-wrench.  That's why my suggestion/NCAA's wording works much better (IMHO).  THEN, ...any runner under ANY condition going into a base standing up on a force play would be INT.... easy peasy  

Agree. It's contradictory. It's easy to understand how some could think going in standing could be completely legal....and I guess there's an argument to be made that it is...as long as the runner doesn't alter the play...which makes things harder, not easier on the umpire...why? Because this call is supposed to be immediate...how do we know if the play was altered until after the throw is released...and going in standing caused the infielder to make a awful throw to F3. 

Yes, I know we can have FPSR at 3B & Home. We also agree that these plays mostly take place at 2b. 

[Thunderheads]

On 2/25/2022 at 3:48 PM, SH0102 said:

Just to add a wrench to this already convoluted discussion , there is a training video on the CBUA arbiter site that states explicitly that this play IS force play slide rule (R3 going home standing).

Even talks about how force at any base, not just second, and the runner must make a legal slide or avoid fielder, neither of which he did

Getting back to this post ....  @SH0102 .... CBUA is college, and @johnnyg08 posted just above that the NCAA words their FPSR ruling much better/clearer.  For college, yes, your post is correct, and I was wrong in my response as I wasn't aware until now of the NCAA wording.  However, NFHS has not adopted this wording and it's not as clear, unfortunately.  

[SH0102]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Getting back to this post ....  @SH0102 .... CBUA is college, and @johnnyg08 posted just above that the NCAA words their FPSR ruling much better/clearer.  For college, yes, your post is correct, and I was wrong in my response as I wasn't aware until now of the NCAA wording.  However, NFHS has not adopted this wording and it's not as clear, unfortunately.  

Thanks for the reply, and to be fair, I was lazy in reading the headline...this thread was specific about NFHS, so my interjection about college having this as FPSR was irrelevant.  My apologies on that part

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, SH0102 said:

Thanks for the reply, and to be fair, I was lazy in reading the headline...this thread was specific about NFHS, so my interjection about college having this as FPSR was irrelevant.  My apologies on that part

no apologies needed, ...it's all good discussion!  

[Thatsnotyou]

What do you have under FED rules? 

 

 

[SH0102]

8 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said:

What do you have under FED rules? 

 

 

FED rules that is FPSR all day, they can’t go through the bag and take out defensive player.

College that “looks” like a legal slide but the camera going away and back makes it hard to tell. Fielder does not APPEAR to side step, in fact appears to step into the basepath between 1/2nd and the runners momentum may carry them through the bag in baseline extended so long as they were on the ground at time of contact in the baseline

[LC Ump]

A slide that "goes beyond the base and makes contact with...the fielder" is an illegal slide according to NFHS 2-32-2.

A runner who "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" with a fielder violates 8-4-2b (the NFHS force play slide rule) is out for interference (as is the BR in this case).

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, LC Ump said:

A slide that "goes beyond the base and makes contact with...the fielder" is an illegal slide according to NFHS 2-32-2.

A runner who "does not legally slide and causes illegal contact" with a fielder violates 8-4-2b (the NFHS force play slide rule) is out for interference (as is the BR in this case).

So, this is another headache due to a poorly-written FED rule (but I repeat myself.)

Does the rule mean something ordinal, in that 1. the runner slides beyond the base and 2. then makes contact? 

Does the rule mean something spatial, in that 1. the runner slides beyond the base and 2. they make contact beyond the base?

Does the rule mean something biconditional, in which 1. the runner slides beyond the base and 2. there is contact?

If it's ordinal or spatial, this isn't FPSR. If it's biconditional, it is. 

[JonnyCat]

11 minutes ago, Matt said:

If it's ordinal or spatial, this isn't FPSR. If it's biconditional, it is.

Ordinal, spatial, biconditional? What is this, English class? 

[ousafe]

6 hours ago, LC Ump said:

A slide that "goes beyond the base and makes contact with...the fielder" is an illegal slide according to NFHS 2-32-2.

@LC UmpYou must have a different Fed rule book than I do.  I'm looking at the 2022 edition (2-32-2-c) - "...goes beyond the base and then makes contact with..." [emphasis added]

I believe the word "then" is important and intentional. @Matt I hope this helps clear it up (i.e. order matters).

Per the actual wording of 2-32-2-c and also Fed case 2.32.1, I have no violation.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, ousafe said:

@LC UmpYou must have a different Fed rule book than I do.  I'm looking at the 2022 edition (2-32-2-c) - "...goes beyond the base and then makes contact with..." [emphasis added]

I believe the word "then" is important and intentional. @Matt I hope this helps clear it up (i.e. order matters).

Per the actual wording of 2-32-2-c and also Fed case 2.32.1, I have no violation.

Excellent. Thanks.

[Senor Azul]

Well done, Mr. ousafe. I agree with you—I have no violation as well since the contact was made with the fielder in front of the base. The FED must feel pretty strongly about this since they put another case play in the book that is nearly identical to 2.32.1

2019 FED Case Book Play 2.32.1 SITUATION:  With R1, a ground ball is hit to F6, who throws to F4 covering second. R1 slides late at second, stays in the baseline, but R1 makes contact with F4 who is in front of the base, causing him to overthrow first base. RULING:  Providing the slide is legal and the contact is not malicious, there is no violation.

2019 FED Case Book Play 5.1.1 Situation O:  With R1, a ground ball is hit to F6, who throws to F4 covering second. R1 slides late at second, stays in the baseline, but R1 makes contact with F4 in front of the base, causing him to overthrow first base. RULING:  Providing the slide is legal and the contact is not malicious, there is no violation. (2-32-2f)

2000 SITUATION 12: R1 attempts to steal second base. F2, seeing he has no chance to throw out R1, does not attempt a throw. F4, who is standing behind second base to cover in case of a throw, is contacted by R1, who slid over the bag and contacts F4. RULING: R1 committed an illegal slide when he slid past the back edge of the base. Because he contacted a player during an illegal slide, he is called out. (8-4-2b penalty, 2-32-2c)

[Thunderheads]

It becomes a legal slide because contact was made in FRONT of the bag.  R1 did slide past 2nd, but contact was made in FRONT of the bag where F4 was standing.  Wording as pointed out by @ousafe supports a no call of FPSR.

Now though, ... the question is ..... in the moment, at that time, "real-time" ... I bet most of us would have a tendency to call FPSR on this because of the contact  Again, making NFHS FPSR a rule that separates the regular umpires from the good ones  

[LC Ump]

Thanks for this conversation. I agree, the initial contact is at or in front of the base and the change in wording from "and" to "then" makes it a legal slide (which is likely what the word change was supposed to clarify).

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

It becomes a legal slide because contact was made in FRONT of the bag.  R1 did slide past 2nd, but contact was made in FRONT of the bag where F4 was standing.  Wording as pointed out by @ousafe supports a no call of FPSR.

Now though, ... the question is ..... in the moment, at that time, "real-time" ... I bet most of us would have a tendency to call FPSR on this because of the contact  Again, making NFHS FPSR a rule that separates the regular umpires from the good ones  

When we see the infielder setting up on the inside of the base, that's one of our keys to notice before contact and/or the slide. 

When we know the rule, we know what to look for and it decreases our chances of being surprised. 

This is why video study is so important. When we see this on our fields...it triggers a memory response.."hey, I've seen this before" It increases our chances of getting this stuff right. 

[Thunderheads]

12 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

When we see the infielder setting up on the inside of the base, that's one of our keys to notice before contact and/or the slide. 

When we know the rule, we know what to look for and it decreases our chances of being surprised. 

This is why video study is so important. When we see this on our fields...it triggers a memory response.."hey, I've seen this before" It increases our chances of getting this stuff right. 

Funny you say that, because, ... slides past and THEN MAKES CONTACT was not clear to me, so I learned something!