Jump to content

FPSR - Two New Case Plays

johnnyg08

By johnnyg08
in High School

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 879 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

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Two new and very significant case plays in this year's NFHS Case Book regarding FPSR. This was a long time coming. Omission of the word "not" is highlighted & boxed. It should read "chooses NOT to slide" 

 

2024 NFHS FPSR.png

  • Like 2
  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DerekGDS
DerekGDS

I could do Navy so dark it almost looks black with charcoal side panels. Wouldn't take much to tweak that 😀

johnnyg08
johnnyg08

Two new and very significant case plays in this year's NFHS Case Book regarding FPSR. This was a long time coming. Omission of the word "not" is highlighted & boxed. It should read "chooses NOT to

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

Ok, great then!  I mean, we discussed this at length last year about how the NCAA had the proper verbiage within their rule and that FED needed to do the same.   At least there's clarification within

Posted Images

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet away and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃

  • Like 1
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet way and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃

Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! 

  • Haha 1
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! 

Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good,  because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. 

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good,  because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. 

Off Topic. NFHS All Access incredibly confusing to have the app on phone but have to buy the book on computer. Took me awhile to figure out how to buy pub which then becomes available in App. Pubs seem OK but you have to use your computer intuition to navigate or search.

  • Thanks 1
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, Richvee said:

Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good,  because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. 

Agree. NFHS All Access is a bit confusing...I like that I can view it from my laptop again for things like this. 

 

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Two new and very significant case plays in this year's NFHS Case Book regarding FPSR. This was a long time coming. Omission of the word "not" is highlighted & boxed. It should read "chooses NOT to slide" 

 

2024 NFHS FPSR.png

So, John ..... are you saying that this "situation Y" from the 2024 casebook is a NEW COMMENT in the "RULING" area clarifying that a runner must veer away?

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

So, John ..... are you saying that this "situation Y" from the 2024 casebook is a NEW COMMENT in the "RULING" area clarifying that a runner must veer away?

These are new Case Plays for 2024. They were not in the 2023 Case Book.

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

These are new Case Plays for 2024. They were not in the 2023 Case Book.

Ok, great then!  I mean, we discussed this at length last year about how the NCAA had the proper verbiage within their rule and that FED needed to do the same.   At least there's clarification within the case plays now :shrug:

  • Like 2
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok, great then!  I mean, we discussed this at length last year about how the NCAA had the proper verbiage within their rule and that FED needed to do the same.   At least there's clarification within the case plays now :shrug:

For sure. These case plays are significant enhancements to the enforcement of this rule. It's much, much clearer. 

Slide legally or get out of the way. 

  • Like 2
The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Richvee said:

Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet away and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃

 

Good job FED for clearing this up.

 

Bad job to the umpires who were so bad at this that it had to be cleared up.  Just saying.  A little common sense.

  • Like 2
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Good job FED for clearing this up.

 

Bad job to the umpires who were so bad at this that it had to be cleared up.  Just saying.  A little common sense.

Yes & Yes. 

Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

FWIW, I reached out to the NFHS and I heard back confirming that the word "not" was an accidental omission. 

 

Great, then it's all what we thought!!!  Thanks John!

  • 1 month later...
Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Here's a photo I saw online

 

inter.jpeg

We had a discussion here about whether you had to slide in OBR/MLB. I'm of the opinion that a retired runner can continue to run.

The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted

. . . and the act of continuing to run, in and of itself, is not interference.  It is also NOT not interference.  Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. 

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 hours ago, Jimurray said:

We had a discussion here about whether you had to slide in OBR/MLB. I'm of the opinion that a retired runner can continue to run.

They sure can. But the reason I posted this is because this is what the violation will often look like in NFHS. 

  • Like 2
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

They sure can. But the reason I posted this is because this is what the violation will often look like in NFHS. 

And NCAA

  • 2 weeks later...
MadMax

MadMax

Posted
Posted
On 2/28/2024 at 10:12 PM, johnnyg08 said:

Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! 

Breaker, breaker, Johnny Snowman ⛄️. Are ya there, good buddy? 

 

On 3/5/2024 at 6:38 AM, johnnyg08 said:

I reached out to the NFHS and I heard back confirming that the word "not" was an accidental omission. 

Oh sure… why can’t they “accidentally omit”  the “shirt shall be navy” line/clause, huh?? 

  • Haha 1
The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MadMax said:

Oh sure… why can’t they “accidentally omit”  the “shirt shall be navy” line/clause, huh?? 

 

“Hey, noob!  That shirt looks black!”

”Nah, man.  My interpretation is that this is pro-navy in color and style.”

Need to take this back to @DerekGDS … why do we need the red?  How about navy with grey side panels?  

  • Like 2
DerekGDS

DerekGDS

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

“Hey, noob!  That shirt looks black!”

”Nah, man.  My interpretation is that this is pro-navy in color and style.”

Need to take this back to @DerekGDS … why do we need the red?  How about navy with grey side panels?  

I could do Navy so dark it almost looks black with charcoal side panels. Wouldn't take much to tweak that 😀

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...