FPSR Rules Analysis (NFHS)

[johnnyg08]

I'll also add that it will probably be a good idea to check with your state's rules authority on how they want it interpreted (these 'gray' area ones) even though there's a good consensus that a couple of these examples are not gray area. 

You don't necessarily want to be the only umpire in your state calling things a certain way. 

Also, when it comes to explaining said call, having your state back you is far more important than any of us on this or any forum (Sorry fellas..but "my friends on the Internet said I can call this") isn't the response the offense is going to want to hear. 

When you ask your state authority, it's probably going to be a good idea to have some video examples to prevent things getting lost in translation. 

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'll also add that it will probably be a good idea to check with your state's rules authority on how they want it interpreted (these 'gray' area ones) even though there's a good consensus that a couple of these examples are not gray area. 

You don't necessarily want to be the only umpire in your state calling things a certain way. 

Also, when it comes to explaining said call, having your state back you is far more important than any of us on this or any forum (Sorry fellas..but "my friends on the Internet said I can call this") isn't the response the offense is going to want to hear. 

When you ask your state authority, it's probably going to be a good idea to have some video examples to prevent things getting lost in translation. 

That's really interesting you brought that up!  I did indeed send this to our State baseball director yesterday who will be one of our trainers at our annual camp coming up this weekend.  This was all perfect timing for sure, and I will definitely let everyone know what Michigan thinks  

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

That's really interesting you brought that up!  I did indeed send this to our State baseball director yesterday who will be one of our trainers at our annual camp coming up this weekend.  This was all perfect timing for sure, and I will definitely let everyone know what Michigan thinks  

Looking forward to his response. @Kevin_Kand I will see some of well qualified umpires this evening. Perhaps this will come up in conversation. 

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Looking forward to his response. @Kevin_Kand I will see some of well qualified umpires this evening. Perhaps this will come up in conversation. 

Yes, me too.   Great, ...well, MAKE it come up in conversation  

[Thunderheads]

All, ....

AS PROMISED!

Well, camp in Michigan is now complete.  One of our classroom sessions was actually focusing on interference, running lane, and FPSR.   In Michigan, my comments within this discussion have been supported based on the words "a runner is never required to slide".  The words "he may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to prevent contact" was emphasized, highlighting the word "may".   MHSAA baseball director said (not verbatim) 'it says he MAY slide or run away' and no where does it say HE MAY NOT go into second standing up, and remember, it says a runner is never required to slide...' (again, not verbatim).

So, here in Michigan, ... going into second standing up in a force play situation is not necessarily FPSR (it's not a rubber stamp) , however, it does certainly INCREASE the chances.   THERE ARE certain circumstances where a runner can go in standing up on a force play and not be FPSR.

@Richvee @Kevin_K ... what did NJ wind up saying ?  Did the discussion come up?

[johnnyg08]

33 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

All, ....

AS PROMISED!

Well, camp in Michigan is now complete.  One of our classroom sessions was actually focusing on interference, running lane, and FPSR.   In Michigan, my comments within this discussion have been supported based on the words "a runner is never required to slide".  The words "he may slide or run in a direction away from the fielder to prevent contact" was emphasized, highlighting the word "may".   MHSAA baseball director said (not verbatim) 'it says he MAY slide or run away' and no where does it say HE MAY NOT go into second standing up, and remember, it says a runner is never required to slide...' (again, not verbatim).

So, here in Michigan, ... going into second standing up in a force play situation is not necessarily FPSR (it's not a rubber stamp) , however, it does certainly INCREASE the chances.   THERE ARE certain circumstances where a runner can go in standing up on a force play and not be FPSR.

@Richvee @Kevin_K ... what did NJ wind up saying ?  Did the discussion come up?

Was there any video study? The reason I ask is I'm pretty sure we already landed at this point. But some video examples of yes or no is where we'll learn to enforce this accurately. 

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Was there any video study? The reason I ask is I'm pretty sure we already landed at this point. But some video examples of yes or no is where we'll learn to enforce this accurately. 

There was not, but I concur 100%

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

  Did the discussion come up?

Kevin and I discussed the video. Kevin thinks watching the video, that runner does indeed try to veer away from F2’s tag, thereby satisfying his responsibilities. He didn’t go in standing towards the fielder. I can surely buy into that. And I can see clearer that this is not a FPSR violation. 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Kevin and I discussed the video. Kevin thinks watching the video, that runner does indeed try to veer away from F2’s tag, thereby satisfying his responsibilities. He didn’t go in standing towards the fielder. I can surely buy into that. And I can see clearer that this is not a FPSR violation. 

I see, thanks.  Did the discussion within the group come up re: FPSR at 2nd going in standing? (just wondering what the outcome was)

[Kevin_K]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I see, thanks.  Did the discussion within the group come up re: FPSR at 2nd going in standing? (just wondering what the outcome was)

The discussion was only between me and @Richvee.

Next Tuesday we are supposed to meet with a cast of characters for a test review. I plan to send the clip to everyone who is going to be there so we can hash it out. Of course, none of the attendees hold the lofty position of state interpreter, but I have no concern lacing em up with any of the guys who will be there. It's a solid core of very good umpires with significant experience and baseball acumen.

Either Rich or I will be sure to give a full report on the discussion.

 

[Thunderheads]

12 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

The discussion was only between me and @Richvee.

Next Tuesday we are supposed to meet with a cast of characters for a test review. I plan to send the clip to everyone who is going to be there so we can hash it out. Of course, none of the attendees hold the lofty position of state interpreter, but I have no concern lacing em up with any of the guys who will be there. It's a solid core of very good umpires with significant experience and baseball acumen.

Either Rich or I will be sure to give a full report on the discussion.

 

 

that's fantastic.  Again, get the viewpoint of a standard 4,6,3 or 4, 6,3 double play scenario also.  This is what I used at the Michigan camp for an example

[johnnyg08]

I'll run the going in standing to home plate & ball dislodges clip by my group too.

 

[Kevin_K]

Last night @Richvee and I had the opportunity to meet with some very good umpires to review our NJ refresher test and we had a spirited discussion on this play.

The group was split. One of our group was adamant that the play was a violation and was stupefied that the NCAA determined it was not. Part of the conversation was wondering why there was no explanation about why the play was not a violation. I think that's a reasonable request, especially if this is a video being used as a teaching tool. 

One of the more interesting aspects was considering if FPSR still applies when the fielder moves into the path of the runner. 

While there was disagreement on whether or not it was a violation, the discussion on the rules, the player requirements, game management, umpire communication, and situational awareness was way more valuable. There was little movement from anyone who had already formed an opinion, but we were able to all part with our egos and friendships intact.

[Richvee]

I think it’s important to note @Kevin_K is of the opinion that the runner in the video does indeed veer away from the catcher in an effort to avoid the tag, thereby absolving him of any wrong doing. I believe Kevin is in agreement with me ( correct me if I’m wrong) that if the runner goes STRAIGHT TO THE BAG standing up, and the ball come loose on the tag, we have a FPSR violation. 
  This is why we’d love to know the NCAA reasoning for saying this is not   a violation. Is it because they believe the runner tries to veer and avoid the tag? Ot is it simply not a violation because they don’t think the runner illegally alters the play?  

[Kevin_K]

19 hours ago, Richvee said:

I think it’s important to note @Kevin_K is of the opinion that the runner in the video does indeed veer away from the catcher in an effort to avoid the tag, thereby absolving him of any wrong doing. I believe Kevin is in agreement with me ( correct me if I’m wrong) that if the runner goes STRAIGHT TO THE BAG standing up, and the ball come loose on the tag, we have a FPSR violation. 
  This is why we’d love to know the NCAA reasoning for saying this is not   a violation. Is it because they believe the runner tries to veer and avoid the tag? Ot is it simply not a violation because they don’t think the runner illegally alters the play?  

I am in agreement that if the runner makes no attempt to move away from the fielder he is guilty of a FPSR.

Some of our group disagreed with my assertion that the runner moved in a direction away from F2. Perspective almost always affects understanding, regardless of the topic, arena, or participants.

[Thunderheads]

11 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

I am in agreement that if the runner makes no attempt to move away from the fielder he is guilty of a FPSR.

Some of our group disagreed with my assertion that the runner moved in a direction away from F2. Perspective almost always affects understanding, regardless of the topic, arena, or participants.

So, just to clarify, you and @Richvee are still saying that the NCAA video of the force play at the plate where F2 reaches out to tag R3, and drops the ball when he makes the tag is FPSR if he doesn't attempt to move away from F2?  On a play where if F2 just touches the plate, he'd be moving in the opposite direction to complete the throw/play to F3?   I don't do NCAA, and not sure if they have the same NFHS rule that says a runner is never required to slide, but if so, that's an argument I'd never try to support on the field w/ an angry coach and undoubtedly, an ejection also.

Sorry for the broken record discussion, but again, I'm on the side of 'that's nothing' here.

Isn't there someone we can ask @Richvee's question re: why NCAA says it's nothing?  That would clarify a bunch!  

[Kevin_K]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:29 AM, johnnyg08 said:

I'll also add that it will probably be a good idea to check with your state's rules authority on how they want it interpreted (these 'gray' area ones) even though there's a good consensus that a couple of these examples are not gray area. 

You don't necessarily want to be the only umpire in your state calling things a certain way. 

Also, when it comes to explaining said call, having your state back you is far more important than any of us on this or any forum (Sorry fellas..but "my friends on the Internet said I can call this") isn't the response the offense is going to want to hear. 

When you ask your state authority, it's probably going to be a good idea to have some video examples to prevent things getting lost in translation. 

Because it's a lovely snow day here in North Jersey I had some time to reach out to the group that posted the video after I watched it again.

The narrator indicated that it was not FPSR violation because there was no attempt by R3 to hinder the fielder. I wrote to them to see if they could offer a resource that supports that position since the rule is about whether or not the fielder is hindered by the runner's actions.

I will keep you posted.

[SH0102]

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

[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

Actually, this isn't anywhere close to being convoluted, ...not sure where you're getting that.  It's a good discussion that is making valid points on each side.

The last comment in your post CANNOT be a broad brush stroke if your rule set says "A RUNNER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO SLIDE" ....  that's the true hitch-point to all of this ....

[SH0102]

5 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Actually, this isn't anywhere close to being convoluted, ...not sure where you're getting that.  It's a good discussion that is making valid points on each side.

Your last comment CANNOT be a broad brush stroke if your rule set says "A RUNNER IS NEVER REQUIRED TO SLIDE" ....  that's the true hitch-point to all of this ....

Well I didn’t make or post the CBUA training videos they posted on Arbiter sooooo…my comment is not “my comment”.

[Thunderheads]

Well I didn’t make or post the CBUA training videos they posted on Arbiter sooooo…my comment is not “my comment”.

You're last comment that you posted..... there, ....feel better?

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk

[Kevin_K]

22 hours ago, SH0102 said:

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

I see the runner making an attempt to avoid the fielder. He veers to his left, from outside the foul line (where F2 is set up and receives the ball) to inside the foul line. F2 moved into the runner.

We will agree to disagree. It's just how I see it with the benefit of dozens of views.

[Kevin_K]

 friend just sent this to me. It gives more insight on why the play at HP is not a violation. If it doesn't start at 5:05, skip ahead.

 

 

[Thunderheads]

 friend just sent this to me. It gives more insight on why the play at HP is not a violation. If it doesn't start at 5:05, skip ahead.
 
 

As I suspected....thanks for this, it helps on many levels

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

Under NFHS would we consider this a violation?