Question on missing a base.

[Jimurray]

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

So, by rule, the batter-runner may completely destroy F3 in an attempt to break up a double play.  Glad they cleared that up.

The thought did occur to me after seeing NCAA add the phrase that maybe someone evil might pick up on breaking up the reverse DP. But does that mean that in years past you would not think that way as NCAA did not exclude 1B from the FPSR, given that most of us would not contemplate the rule applying there? Do they now have to add a FstBSR?

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The thought did occur to me after seeing NCAA add the phrase that maybe someone evil might pick up on breaking up the reverse DP. But does that mean that in years past you would not think that way as NCAA did not exclude 1B from the FPSR, given that most of us would not contemplate the rule applying there? Do they now have to add a FstBSR?

I would guess that 25% of our first-year D3 umpires did not know that the play at first was not considered a force and would have applied FPSR if the situation arose. This was one of the longer conversations at our test meeting.

There needs not to be such a rule at first because doing so takes away much of the ability for BR to overrun the base. And that is why this needed to be cleared up, because yes, @beerguy55, it is a consequence that a legal collision can happen at 1B for this reason.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

I would guess that 25% of our first-year D3 umpires did not know that the play at first was not considered a force and would have applied FPSR if the situation arose. This was one of the longer conversations at our test meeting.

There needs not to be such a rule at first because doing so takes away much of the ability for BR to overrun the base. And that is why this needed to be cleared up, because yes, @beerguy55, it is a consequence that a legal collision can happen at 1B for this reason.

Aside from the real world timing that might preclude this happening on a reverse DP,  could a B-R take out F3 by sliding, either within reach or not of 1B?

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Aside from the real world timing that might preclude this happening on a reverse DP,  could a B-R take out F3 by sliding, either within reach or not of 1B?

Keep in mind we have RLI protecting that fielder. If that slide was outside the lane, that's what would govern. A slide within the lane is always going to be within reach of 1B.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Keep in mind we have RLI protecting that fielder. If that slide was outside the lane, that's what would govern. A slide within the lane is always going to be within reach of 1B.

While you could stretch RLI to a throw from 2B I don’t think you could stretch it to F3 already having the ball and throwing it to 2B in a reverse DP. 

[Replacematt]

Just now, Jimurray said:

While you could stretch RLI to a throw from 2B I don’t think you could stretch it to F3 already having the ball and throwing it to 2B in a reverse DP. 

That would be a an ineffective way to interfere, so my default judgment is that it was an attempt to reach the base or avoid the throw (thus, not intentional.) If we're in the window where the fielder already has the ball when a runner is making their decision, that runner is far enough away where we're not worrying about a slide. In short, the rules create a situation where it's disadvantageous for a slide, so this isn't going to happen (and I'd ask, have you ever seen a BR slide to the inside of the base as/after a fielder gets the ball? I'd wager not, because the smarter play is to stay vertical and create an obstacle, just like we saw last year.)

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

That would be a an ineffective way to interfere, so my default judgment is that it was an attempt to reach the base or avoid the throw (thus, not intentional.) If we're in the window where the fielder already has the ball when a runner is making their decision, that runner is far enough away where we're not worrying about a slide. In short, the rules create a situation where it's disadvantageous for a slide, so this isn't going to happen (and I'd ask, have you ever seen a BR slide to the inside of the base as/after a fielder gets the ball? I'd wager not, because the smarter play is to stay vertical and create an obstacle, just like we saw last year.)

F3 fields a grounder near 1B and decides to tag it first. Have never seen a sit where the B-R was close enough to slide and take out F3 but the NCAA additional wording this year has @beerguy55 thinking about taking out F3. No I don't think he is evil or would he teach his players to take out F3 but the change had him and me thinking. Could the retired runner continue to advance, slide within reach of the base and take out F3 as he throws to 2B? In OBR before they provided force play protection Wendlestedt said the retired runner clause is what allowed a runner to slide within reach of 2B and take out the pivot man. Again, real world reverse DP timing would probably never have the B-R close enough so the question is academic. (I think)

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

F3 fields a grounder near 1B and decides to tag it first. Have never seen a sit where the B-R was close enough to slide and take out F3 but the NCAA additional wording this year has @beerguy55 thinking about taking out F3. No I don't think he is evil or would he teach his players to take out F3 but the change had him and me thinking. Could the retired runner continue to advance, slide within reach of the base and take out F3 as he throws to 2B? In OBR before they provided force play protection Wendlestedt said the retired runner clause is what allowed a runner to slide within reach of 2B and take out the pivot man. Again, real world reverse DP timing would probably never have the B-R close enough so the question is academic. (I think)

That's kind of the point--there just isn't a plausible situation in which I see a slide being an issue, but if one arises, I'll just go to where it's addressed in the rule book, which is the collision rule. 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

F3 fields a grounder near 1B and decides to tag it first. Have never seen a sit where the B-R was close enough to slide and take out F3 but the NCAA additional wording this year has @beerguy55 thinking about taking out F3. No I don't think he is evil or would he teach his players to take out F3 but the change had him and me thinking. Could the retired runner continue to advance, slide within reach of the base and take out F3 as he throws to 2B? In OBR before they provided force play protection Wendlestedt said the retired runner clause is what allowed a runner to slide within reach of 2B and take out the pivot man. Again, real world reverse DP timing would probably never have the B-R close enough so the question is academic. (I think)

 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

That's kind of the point--there just isn't a plausible situation in which I see a slide being an issue, but if one arises, I'll just go to where it's addressed in the rule book, which is the collision rule. 

The closest I can come up with is not a traditional reverse DP, but a play where F3 could have a play at a second out after retiring B/R.   Like R1 running on pitch, slow grounder to F5, close play at first...followed by F3 throwing to third base to try to get R1.  (or same play but R2 going home...or R3 hesitates and goes home on throw to first)

 

EDIT: in reality, my first post about this was more about seeing the humor (at least my sense of humor) in the NCAA preaching about the safety priorities of the rule...and then in the same breath saying the safety of F3 doesn't matter.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

That's kind of the point--there just isn't a plausible situation in which I see a slide being an issue, but if one arises, I'll just go to where it's addressed in the rule book, which is the collision rule. 

I think the collision rule would work on a slide to take out F3 that wasn't directly at 1B.

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

The closest I can come up with is not a traditional reverse DP, but a play where F3 could have a play at a second out after retiring B/R.   Like R1 running on pitch, slow grounder to F5, close play at first...followed by F3 throwing to third base to try to get R1.  (or same play but R2 going home...or R3 hesitates and goes home on throw to first)

 

EDIT: in reality, my first post about this was more about seeing the humor (at least my sense of humor) in the NCAA preaching about the safety priorities of the rule...and then in the same breath saying the safety of F3 doesn't matter.

I get it. I'm pointing out that there are rules to protect from this type of contact in the rare occasions that 1. this situation arises and 2. BR is in any place to affect the outcome of the play by deviating from their attempt to advance, all while balancing the game with allowing BR their ability to advance and overrun.

[Vegas_Ump]

Here's a Cliff's Notes answer:  If the third out is made on the BR before he LEGALLY attains first base, no runs score.  

He can be retired on an appeal for a missed base, interference before he gets to first base, uncaught third strike properly mitigated by the defense, etc.  The context of a FORCE PLAY is often used a lot for a BR at first base;  but see above for the definition of a force play--it pertains to other runners who must vacate because the batter became a batter-runner.  See how easy that is?  🙂

Mike

Las Vegas

[kylehutson]

Late to the posting party. The NCAA qualifier is dumb for another reason by talking about the BR at first. The penalty for a FSPR rule violation is that the interfering runner is out, and so is the BR. What are you going to do if this was a violation? You (points at BR) are out, and so are you (points again).