FPSR Disagreement

[Tborze]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

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.

“The family has a lot of BUFFERS” 

Quote from?

[Kevin_K]

14 hours ago, Richvee said:

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. 

Interestingly, and perhaps not coincidentally, this week's "You Make the Call" is on a runner legally contacting a middle infielder on a force play.

[MadMax]

21 hours ago, JSam21 said:

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.

Sure! I’m with you on this island. 

And before I say this next statement, let me assure you, I (and fellow Vultures and guys-of-similar-mind) call it here in NFHS… There are a host of guys who don’t, and their “fall-back position”, when confronted with the codified support (AYCI) for it, is, “Well, I’m the umpire, it’s my judgement, and that’s the way I call it! (followed by, “I’ve called it that way for ____ years, who are you to tell me otherwise??”).” 

Granted, associations have the latitude to apply & make stick certain points in the rules. The NFHS Rulebook presents that latitude. However, even in their POEs, there are gaping disconnects between what-and-why various enforcements are prioritized. 

I think a “FPSR” interpretation is way more important to construct a POE around than an Eyeblack Outbreak. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Interestingly, and perhaps not coincidentally, this week's "You Make the Call" is on a runner legally contacting a middle infielder on a force play.

It's a great example of a legal slide with contact on top of the base. 

[Thunderheads]

25 minutes ago, MadMax said:

I think a “FPSR” interpretation is way more important to construct a POE around than an Eyeblack Outbreak. 

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, Tborze said:

“The family has a lot of BUFFERS” 

Quote from?

You may find this amusing Mr. Cicci but I assure you this committee does not.

[JSam21]

34 minutes ago, MadMax said:

There are a host of guys who don’t, and their “fall-back position”, when confronted with the codified support (AYCI) for it, is, “Well, I’m the umpire, it’s my judgement, and that’s the way I call it! (followed by, “I’ve called it that way for ____ years, who are you to tell me otherwise??”).” 

*shutters violently*

[RBIbaseball]

On 4/22/2024 at 2:48 PM, JSam21 said:

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.

100% agree. Which is why I admitted I'll be a coward on this one, lol ... I'm not going to take unnecessary heat from teams and association even if every authority beyond that says otherwise.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

100% agree. Which is why I admitted I'll be a coward on this one, lol ... I'm not going to take unnecessary heat from teams and association even if every authority beyond that says otherwise.

A segue. Are we calling RLI according to the latest Texas interp which also was an interp a few years back on the old Arbiter NFHS site:

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/19/2024 at 8:01 AM, 834k3r said:

FED. R1/R2, 1 out. I'm in C. Ground ball to F5, who throws to F6 covering 2B; the throw easily beats R1. F6 takes the ball on the 3B side of 2B, and makes no attempt at a throw to 1B--not even a cocking of his arm. R1 did not move toward F6, nor did he slide.

DTHC (who has a reputation for complaining for calls) screams for INT, which I don't give. PU (senior guy) calls time and we meet in the infield. PU says it doesn't matter if F6 didn't attempt a play, so he's going to call the B/R out at 1B for the INT.

Question 1:  Who's call is the INT? PU is supposed to help clean up the play at 2B, but whose call is it for INT?

First, that is your call.  It is a judgment call and since there was no throw to first base, that is your call all the way. Thus, the PU should not be involved. Second, ask yourself this: Did R1 in ANY WAY disrupt the play of F6?  If the answer is "no" you've got nothing.  In a situation like this, be thinking of the spirit and intent of the rule, which is to protect the fielder.    

[RBIbaseball]

42 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

A segue. Are we calling RLI according to the latest Texas interp which also was an interp a few years back on the old Arbiter NFHS site:

 

If the catcher comes up clean and directly makes a throw and retires the runner, what was interfered with?  What was hindered?

Is this equating RLI to FPSR - in regards to it being a safety rule, not a interference rule? iirc Fed is more strict in calling RLI than OBR due to the "safety factor", but it's not in and of itself a "safety rule" in the same way FPSR is...  Point being, if nothing is hindered, nothing is hindered.

On the other hand, if F2 double clutches, then steps another couple steps inside to make a safe throwing lane and still retires the runner, then I'd be more inclined to call it if it allowed R2 to get to 3B. In this example, the throw gets the runner cleanly, but now the play to keep R2 at 2B or relay to 3B for a double play was hindered.

[Velho]

46 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

If the catcher comes up clean and directly makes a throw and retires the runner, what was interfered with?  What was hindered?

Playing a bit devil's advocate and also seeing some merit in the Texas interp:

What if the RLI, by nature of the throw F2 has to make, hinders F3 in making the next play? e.g. big stretch and slow to get throw off to home for play on  R2?

Also, illegal act is illegal act. Why not get penalized? Same as R1 OBS back into 1B on a pickoff. "Nullify" it would be stay at R1 but R1 gets 2B for defense's illegal act.

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, MadMax said:

I think a “FPSR” interpretation is way more important to construct a POE around than an Eyeblack Outbreak. 

 

Are you kidding?  A guy not sliding might get a black eye.  These other kids that we need to regulate look as if they definitely have TWO!  Also, it could spread!

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

Playing a bit devil's advocate and also seeing some merit in the Texas interp:

What if the RLI, by nature of the throw F2 has to make, hinders F3 in making the next play? e.g. big stretch and slow to get throw off to home for play on  R2?

Also, illegal act is illegal act. Why not get penalized? Same as R1 OBS back into 1B on a pickoff. "Nullify" it would be stay at R1 but R1 gets 2B for defense's illegal act.

The Texas interp is just reiterating the 2015 NFHS interp on arbiter which has been ignored for 8 years. 

[The Man in Blue]

16 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The Texas interp is just reiterating the 2015 NFHS interp on arbiter which has been ignored for 8 years. 

I wonder why or how that could happen … 🤔

[RBIbaseball]

So had a play yesterday. NHFS varsity game.

no outs, R1 - I'm BU

Slow roller toward F4 but he just waited on it. Team is telling F4 to go to 1B but he tries for force out at 2B. F6 is stretched off 2B toward F4 / right field. R1 runs THROUGH 2B as if he was running through 1B on a infield ground ball. I had him out on a bang/bang play. 

F6 chases down R1 and tags him probably because his brain short circuited from the baserunning technique (or lack there of).

 

By rule, some of you have this as FPSR and no question has to be 2 outs. The B/R was fast and only a couple steps away from 1B. F6 never considered turning a double play, nor was there a chance at it. He was stretched toward RF corner to receive the ball.

 

I asked my PU (who happened to be the #1 ranked umpire in my region the last two years). He acted like I was crazy for even bringing it up. He said don't go looking for calls - there was no interference and he wasn't in the way of anything. I just reiterated that "by rule they have to veer or slide directly into the base or it's FPSR". He got short and told me, no, stop reaching... I actually think I lost credibility in his eyes for even mentioning it. (that's a whole other issue, but it supports my point that in my region, a call like this wouldn't be supported).

[Velho]

5 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

I asked my PU (who happened to be the #1 ranked umpire in my region the last two years

Zero doubt he's very good but I have to ask (and I'm dropping my usually smartassery) is this an anecdotal statement or a genuine ranking? How does this ranking work?

5 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

He got short and told me, no, stop reaching... I actually think I lost credibility in his eyes for even mentioning it

Unsolicited input so it's worth what you paid - I have this issue. I ask questions (sometimes too granular because I want to peel the layers apart) in genuine curiosity and people think I'm advocating. I've tried to ask things along the lines of "what're thoughts on that slide? I've heard some say that's a FPSR double play. What do you think?" then "read the room". If they respond as the PU did. Let it die and move on. If there is ambiguity in the response you can probe "so you said sometimes. What kind of things would happen for you to grab it?"

Just throwing it out there as it's something I constantly work on (fortunately my wife "helps" me often).

[The Man in Blue]

@Velho . . . I have spent my life as "an onion peeler" and people frequently take that the wrong way.  I am "green" on one of those personality assessments.  I want to know how and why something works, that doesn't mean I am being critical or challenging you.  Taking it apart is one step in building it (or my understanding) better. Some people don't understand that.

So . . . For those using this new "veer or slide" direction, does ducking count?  I have always considered that as an "avoid."  Technically, it is still going straight in though.  Had it yesterday (no, didn't call it).

[RBIbaseball]

@Velho

So #1 ranking basically means he was chosen to go to state finals. It's not really about him being #1 per se, it's more about giving you guys the context and emphasizing that he is considered to be a top umpire in my region and is obviously well respected by the assignor. He's been in the region for over 15 years.

Ya, I read the room after the last comment and didn't keep pushing it. I'm very much an onion peeler, a devil's advocate... I love to ask questions and dig into the what if's.

There were a few folks that mentioned how this SHOULD be called in every situation with zero exceptions. I was just giving another example on a situation where by their interpretation it SHOULD have been called because the criteria was met ... I thought this weird situation where, I guess, they would  have called it... just coincidence it happened within a few days of the thread.

@The Man in Blue 

Growing up in the Army I had a really hard time, because I would ask questions to my Sergeants to understand WHY they are making a decision... to learn... so that when I'm in their position I can also make good decisions, etc.

Suffice it to say, more than a few of my leader's took it as disrespect and talking back... Just gotta learn who is open to being peeled and who isn't.

[Velho]

1 minute ago, RBIbaseball said:

Just gotta learn who is open to being peeled and who isn't.

Quote of the month

[Tborze]

 

[UmpAgain]

I appreciate Rich's clarification from the NCAA interpreter (not that i call college).  Based on out discussion thus far, I would summarize: Call the FPSR if there is anything resembling a play going on, but if there is absolutely no play, don't call it.

Consider this play I had in a recent varsity NFHS game:  R1, no outs.  Batter hits a trouble-ball pop up to short right field, F4 is playing in slightly for the double play and has no chance, F9 is sprinting in while R1 is holding about 1/3 of the way to 2B, ball is just missed by F9 and R1 sprints to 2B.  Ball to F6 arrives 3-4 steps prior to R1's arrival.  R1 puts on the breaks and comes in standing up and gently raises his arms and contacts f6 -- almost like you do if you were about to bump into someone in a hallway.  F6 had nothing at 1B and showed no desire/intent/or plan to turn the pivot.  BR has been standing on 1B long enough to get a manicure.

I assume we are supposed to call the FPSR in this situation? 

I was PU BTW and my (very experienced) partner did not call it.  He had the whole play as there was no pivot.  I asked him about it afterwards and he said it shouldn't be called in this situation.

-Steve

[The Man in Blue]

@UmpAgain . . . Back on the first page of this thread, the case plays were posted.  I went back and read them to make sure before I spoke out of turn: NO.  NFHS still requires "the fielder is there attempting a play." 

 

I am still curious about ducking.  The setup makes it seem as if ducking may be sufficient, but the ruling expressly states "slide or veer."  BONUS GRIPE: It still chaps my chitlins that NFHS insists on a case play referencing a thing that does not exist in the rulebook.