FPSR Disagreement

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

No offense taken! 🙂

I actually like the interp. It requires the runner to essentially slide or avoid. 

The time was coming where an R1 was going to get dotted. There's only one reason they're going in standing and it's to distract the middle infielders. Plain and simple. 

 

59 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Yes. Problem is some think it only applies when a runner is safe because of the example they give. 
 

Exception A runner need not slide directly onto a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from a fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. The umpire may use judgement due to the unusual nature of a play such as when a runner does not slide and is safe at the base before the throw arrives or slides directly to a base from a position  not in a direct line between the bases , as long as there is no issue with safety or interference. Interference shall not be called. 
 

 

 

So . . . essentially what we've always done anyway, except now we have "clarification" that people are misinterpreting and misapplying as a new rule.  Sounds about right.  

[johnnyg08]

22 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

So . . . essentially what we've always done anyway, except now we have "clarification" that people are misinterpreting and misapplying as a new rule.  Sounds about right.  

Yep. Cheers! 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

So . . . essentially what we've always done anyway, except now we have "clarification" that people are misinterpreting and misapplying as a new rule.  Sounds about right.  

Thats my thought. To me,  this exception says if a runner goes into the bag standing up and there isn’t even a fielder in the vicinity of the bag, it’s not a FPSR. 

[JSam21]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, TheLovejoy said:

Groundball hit to F4, he flips to F6 who's coming across the bag, and continues coming across the bag, (toward F4). So instead of veering toward the right field line, (which would put him in the way of F6 who's coming across the bag), he goes straight into the bag standing up. BR is safe because the play took too long to develop, not because R1 did anything to slow the play, throw, or anything in the way.

My common sense says this would be ok. Your rule of the law says this is not ok, and BR is out regardless. Correct? 

 

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

Yes. Problem is some think it only applies when a runner is safe because of the example they give. 
 

Exception A runner need not slide directly onto a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from a fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. The umpire may use judgement due to the unusual nature of a play such as when a runner does not slide and is safe at the base before the throw arrives or slides directly to a base from a position  not in a direct line between the bases , as long as there is no issue with safety or interference. Interference shall not be called. 
 

 

It does only apply when the runner is safe. 

[JSam21]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, TheLovejoy said:

Groundball hit to F4, he flips to F6 who's coming across the bag, and continues coming across the bag, (toward F4). So instead of veering toward the right field line, (which would put him in the way of F6 who's coming across the bag), he goes straight into the bag standing up. BR is safe because the play took too long to develop, not because R1 did anything to slow the play, throw, or anything in the way.

My common sense says this would be ok. Your rule of the law says this is not ok, and BR is out regardless. Correct? 

You are only focusing on the interference aspect of the play... This isn't an interference rule, it is a safety rule. If they go into the base standing up and the defender has to move from the base (on their own or not) it is a violation. 

[834k3r]

On 4/21/2024 at 8:10 AM, johnnyg08 said:

In our state for NFHS we want our PU to come up the 1B side. We feel as though we get a better perspective/look on R1's actions at 2B versus coming up on the 3B side. 

I never felt comfortable with the looks I was getting on the 3B side. I couldn't calibrate R1's path from the 3B side. I get a much better look from the 1B side....and my other responsibilities give me better positioning too. 

This matches our association's preferred mechanic.

Also, to book-end this discussion a bit, I made a pretty definitive FPSR violation in a varsity game this weekend. R1 slides in legally...until he pivots and rolls tangling his legs with F6, who was looking at F3 and had his arm cocked. I let the play finish, called time, then announced the violation (INT) and penalty (BR out).

OHC came unglued and I mentally rolled my eyes. At the end of the discussion the OHC actually said (and this is a varsity coach mind you), "you mean the runner has to take responsibility for how he slides."

Uh, yeah, coach. There's literally a rule about what constitutes a legal slide. 🙄

[Thunderheads]

On 4/20/2024 at 7:29 AM, noumpere said:

Play A) F4 takes the throw, stays on the base.  R1 veers off and runs past the base 6' toward the RF side of the base.

Play B) F4 takes the throw, continues toward third by 6'.  R1 runs through the base.

 

(If 6' isn't enough for you, use 10' or whatever).

 

A is legal and B is a FPSR violation?

This is a very interesting view of this, however.  Play B, if you look at it ....with f4 taking the throw and coming towards 3rd base, ... if R1 is going in standing up because he sees what's going on, ...isn't he in fact 'veering' / staying away from the fielder?     I KNOW WHAT THE RULE SAYS .... but again, I see what @noumpere is presenting here

[Tborze]

With R1 the shift is on to the right side with a lefty up to bat. R1 steals on the pitch as the batter hits a high bounding ground ball to the right side. R1 seeing there is nobody covering 3B as F5 takes a late throw from F6 on the CF side of 2B. R1 continues to run touching the inside part of the base and will make it to 3B easily…

NCAA ruling…?  

[RBIbaseball]

  

On 4/22/2024 at 12:41 PM, Thunderheads said:

if R1 is going in standing up because he sees what's going on - probably

...isn't he in fact 'veering' / staying away from the fielder?   - well he's definitely not veering, but he could be staying away in the fact he is already away and clearly not impeding a throw or being unsafe

I've found this thread very interesting. I thought the MLB video posted was a great example for "if this happened with less than 2 outs in a HS game".

For whatever it's worth, I feel like calling a FPSR here makes zero sense (if I was King for a day). But if all the assignors and rules interpreters that get you paid tell you it's a no brainer, then obviously keep making the right call. If anything it will highlight the fact there is room for judgement here and maybe an amendment down the line.

"It's not an interference rule, it's a safety rule".... okay then why are we calling it when there is nothing remotely unsafe caused by the lack of action of the runner? This is not really even subjective. The examples proposed have zero intent by a fielder to make a play, or a runner that is several feet outside of the throwing path even without veering. Answer: because that's how it's written. We are teaching runners to Always Veer, Always Veer, Always Veer. Got it - makes sense.

I can buy into the argument even if I personally think it's silly... but, I'm not going to call it, cause I know my colleagues and assignor and NONE of them would support this call. So I'll be a coward on this one with respect to my local climate.

 

[JSam21]

37 minutes ago, Tborze said:

With R1 the shift is on to the right side with a lefty up to bat. R1 steals on the pitch as the batter hits a high bounding ground ball to the right side. R1 seeing there is nobody covering 3B as F5 takes a late throw from F6 on the CF side of 2B. R1 continues to run touching the inside part of the base and will make it to 3B easily…

NCAA ruling…?  

Nothing. Runner was safe and there was no contact.

[JSam21]

23 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

  

I've found this thread very interesting. I thought the MLB video posted was a great example for "if this happened with less than 2 outs in a HS game".

For whatever it's worth, I feel like calling a FPSR here makes zero sense (if I was King for a day). But if all the assignors and rules interpreters that get you paid tell you it's a no brainer, then obviously keep making the right call. If anything it will highlight the fact there is room for judgement here and maybe an amendment down the line.

"It's not an interference rule, it's a safety rule".... okay then why are we calling it when there is nothing remotely unsafe caused by the lack of action of the runner? This is not really even subjective. The examples proposed have zero intent by a fielder to make a play, or a runner that is several feet outside of the throwing path even without veering. Answer: because that's how it's written. We are teaching runners to Always Veer, Always Veer, Always Veer. Got it - makes sense.

I can buy into the argument even if I personally think it's silly... but, I'm not going to call it, cause I know my colleagues and assignor and NONE of them would support this call. So I'll be a coward on this one in regards to my local climate.

 

If we don't call it like it is written, nothing gets changed with the rule because "there isn't an issue". So if you don't like a rule, call it. Call it often. Get everyone else that doesn't like the wording of the rule to call it and call it often... then see how quickly it gets changed.

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

41 minutes ago, Tborze said:

With R1 the shift is on to the right side with a lefty up to bat. R1 steals on the pitch as the batter hits a high bounding ground ball to the right side. R1 seeing there is nobody covering 3B as F5 takes a late throw from F6 on the CF side of 2B. R1 continues to run touching the inside part of the base and will make it to 3B easily…

NCAA ruling…?  

Nothing. Runner was safe and there was no contact.

Same exact play but it's a whacker and R1 is out. BR out too?

[JSam21]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

Same exact play but it's a whacker and R1 is out. BR out too?

Yes. 

[MadMax]

26 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

So if you don't like a rule, call it. Call it often. Get everyone else that doesn't like the wording of the rule to call it and call it often... then see how quickly it gets changed.

... in the NCAA environment, yes. Absolutely. 

In the NFHS environment? That is supposed to go to the Rules Committee... and there might be crickets. 🦗

[JSam21]

5 minutes ago, MadMax said:

... in the NCAA environment, yes. Absolutely. 

In the NFHS environment? That is supposed to go to the Rules Committee... and there might be crickets. 🦗

Well... then call it like it is written then? We have support from the book, rule and case, to call it. We don't have support to pass on it. The only thing that really bothers me is the mental gymnastics that we will partake in to avoid making a call.

[noumpere]

53 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

 We don't have support to pass on it.

Didn't the FED case play posted earlier say something like "R1 must slide *if a fielder is at the base..."  (no, I don't have the exact quote.)  If F4/6 is 6' from the base, it would seem that the clause in the case does not apply.

[JSam21]

9 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Didn't the FED case play posted earlier say something like "R1 must slide *if a fielder is at the base..."  (no, I don't have the exact quote.)  If F4/6 is 6' from the base, it would seem that the clause in the case does not apply.

So are we judging if the defender moved to avoid a runner who didn't fulfill their requirements or if they moved on their own accord? Because the defender had to be at the base to record the out.... right?

 

The runner is in the vicinity of the base, the defender is in the vicinity of the base, we need a slide directly into the base or a slide/run away from the defender. Running directly at the base is neither of those things.

 

[beerguy55]

4 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

So are we judging if the defender moved to avoid a runner who didn't fulfill their requirements or if they moved on their own accord? Because the defender had to be at the base to record the out.... right?

 

The runner is in the vicinity of the base, the defender is in the vicinity of the base, we need a slide directly into the base or a slide/run away from the defender. Running directly at the base is neither of those things.

 

20 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

No offense taken! 🙂

I actually like the interp. It requires the runner to essentially slide or avoid. 

The time was coming where an R1 was going to get dotted. There's only one reason they're going in standing and it's to distract the middle infielders. Plain and simple. 

 

Even by "letter of the rule" the rule says "R1 must veer away from the base if the fielder is there attempting a play"

There?  Where is there?  On the base?  Two feet?  Eight feet?  The same zip code?

Spirit of the rule vs letter of the rule...If F4 comes across second, touches the base, and with his momentum he is 6/8/10' inside second base by the time he releases the throw to first, and at that time R1 is arriving, or nearly arriving at 2nd base, coming in standing up, I have a hard time ruling R1 violated anything, by "spirit" of the rule.   Your choice is to make the letter call and see if enough coaches/umpires complain about it to get it changed...or make the spirit call and see if someone protests.   

And that's forgetting any notion of judgment to what qualifies as "there".

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

So are we judging if the defender moved to avoid a runner who didn't fulfill their requirements or if they moved on their own accord? Because the defender had to be at the base to record the out.... right?

The defender had to touch the base and they usually leave the base to make the throw because they know a legally sliding runner can take them out at the base, except for the case where the pivot man touches the base and steps back to make the throw from 1B 2B line extended, a protected area in FED but not in NCAA.

[Velho]

Agreed this is an interesting discussion and thanks for everyone's patience as this didn't add up for me until just now: they are looking at Fielder and Runner similar to how I looked at my daughter going to prom on Saturday:

Buffer zone. BIG buffer zone.

[noumpere]

4 hours ago, JSam21 said:

The runner is in the vicinity of the base, the defender is in the vicinity of the base, we need a slide directly into the base or a slide/run away from the defender. Running directly at the base is neither of those things.

 

Agreed.  My use of 6' or 10' was meant to imply that the fielder was not in the vicinity of the base.

And, yes, in practice, it's easy to tell if F6 moved on his own or to avoid the runner who wasn't sliding.

 

I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to the fielder; I have a problem with making it an absolute.

[Richvee]

Ok. I emailed our NCAA association‘s interpreter today. He’s also a current D1 SEC umpire, has post seasons under his belt….alright, enough of his qualifications.

I’ll start with a little background. 
our association puts out “you make the call” videos where we answer, then the correct answer is giving later in the week. A few weeks ago, we watched a play where there was a slow roller to f6  who is behind the bag, F4 stretches from the back edge of the base like  a first baseman, and it’s a bang bang force play. R1, running full speed, cutting and stepping on the inside corner and continues on to third as one would on a base hit. The umpire calls safe and r1 continues to 3b. He never touched f4. The ruling is this is not a FPSR violation, due to the new exception. 
 

Here’s my email to him. 
 Specifically, in our You Make the Call video, that runner is not in violation, as covered under the exception. The question is, does this change if that runner was called out, and ran through standing up? 
The argument being the exception only applies if a runner is safe. 

 In general, if a runner goes in standing up, and is out, is it 100% automatic he has committed a FPSR violation? 
In other words, GB to f6, he flips to f4, who catches the ball on the run coming across 2B for an out, and is 5-6 feet to the 3B side of 2B when R1 reaches 2B going in standing up? I would think this would also fall under the exception. Am I wrong?

Here’s his reply. 
 

 

..just because someone does something wrong, doesn't mean there is a violation. There also has to be a hindrance, (or in the case of FPSR, a safety issue).

 

If the runner goes in standing and has zero bearing on the play, he is not guilty of anything

 

I rest my case. 

[noumpere]

I hope we can now end the thread; recognizing that for many of us, we need to do what our bosses want and there might be some FED areas where the bosses (incorrectly) want this called.

[johnnyg08]

10 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I hope we can now end the thread; recognizing that for many of us, we need to do what our bosses want and there might be some FED areas where the bosses (incorrectly) want this called.

My slight counter point would be that since this is a new FED interp, I feel as though we should use a stricter interpretation early. If nothing changes in how it's called, then nothing will change. 

[JSam21]

26 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

My slight counter point would be that since this is a new FED interp, I feel as though we should use a stricter interpretation early. If nothing changes in how it's called, then nothing will change. 

100% agree.