Jump to content

FPSR Disagreement

834k3r

By 834k3r
in Situations

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 846 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

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Quack, quack . . . I present: THE DUCK.

 

Note: This video is 3 years old, so there would not have been a call at that time.  I'm looking for clarification under this "new interpretation."

I’m not sure we need any new interp here. R1 went in standing, hindered F4’s throw. Maybe even made illegal contact 

  • Like 1
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Richvee
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 backgro

Velho
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 g

noumpere
noumpere

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

Posted Images

The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted

Missing my point … I’m not litigating this play.  I’m looking for clarification: under our old guidance, this was an attempt to avoid.  Is it still under the new guidance?

 

Richvee

Richvee

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

Missing my point … I’m not litigating this play.  I’m looking for clarification: under our old guidance, this was an attempt to avoid.  Is it still under the new guidance?

 

I disagree. I don’t think this was ever an attempt to avoid on a force play. A force play violation today, as well as 3 years ago. 

  • Like 2
JSam21

JSam21

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

Missing my point … I’m not litigating this play.  I’m looking for clarification: under our old guidance, this was an attempt to avoid.  Is it still under the new guidance?

 

It wasn't really though. Too many people just stopped reading at "never required to slide" and left it at that. They also thought that the FPSR could only be applied if the runner actually performed a slide. This would/should have been a violation 3 years ago as well. 

  • Like 3
The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Richvee said:

I disagree. I don’t think this was ever an attempt to avoid on a force play. A force play violation today, as well as 3 years ago. 

Still missing my point, let me try again …

Is a successful duck (does not interfere) considered a violation since the runner did not slide and did not veer?  A runner goes straight in, but not straight up.

ousafe

ousafe

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Still missing my point, let me try again …

Is a successful duck (does not interfere) considered a violation since the runner did not slide and did not veer?  A runner goes straight in, but not straight up.

I have that the runner "altered the pattern of play", even if he ducked and no contact was made. Interference. FPSR violation.

You see it differently?

  • Like 3
Richvee

Richvee

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

Still missing my point, let me try again …

Is a successful duck (does not interfere) considered a violation since the runner did not slide and did not veer?  A runner goes straight in, but not straight up.

No. If he's close enough to the bag to slide he needs to slide or veer off. 

 Ducking at the bag never was, nor is a legit attempt to avoid a FPSR violation.

Whatever he does at the bag other than a legal slide still needs to hinder, or illegally contact or alter the play to be a violation. Just like going in standing up, if he goes in ducking, and doesn't make contact, hinder, or alter the play, it's nothing. 

In this particular clip, it's still a violation. He clearly alters the play. 

  • Like 2
JSam21

JSam21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Still missing my point, let me try again …

Is a successful duck (does not interfere) considered a violation since the runner did not slide and did not veer?  A runner goes straight in, but not straight up.

Did the runner run or slide in a direction away from the defender?

  • Like 1
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Still missing my point, let me try again …

Is a successful duck (does not interfere) considered a violation since the runner did not slide and did not veer?  A runner goes straight in, but not straight up.

I don't see "duck" (or similar)  in the rules.  I see "legal slide" and "run away" (or similar).

 

If the fielder is at the base as in the OP, it's a violation.  (I would say if the fielder is away from the base it's not a violation, but I recognize others have a different opinion on that.)

RBIbaseball

RBIbaseball

Posted
Posted
On 5/4/2024 at 8:07 PM, The Man in Blue said:

@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 could be wrong, but I swear multiple folks in this this thread argued the receiving of the ball IS the play... And that a throwing play to 1B is not required.

The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, noumpere said:

I don't see "duck" (or similar)  in the rules.  I see "legal slide" and "run away" (or similar).

 

If the fielder is at the base as in the OP, it's a violation.  (I would say if the fielder is away from the base it's not a violation, but I recognize others have a different opinion on that.)

 

9 hours ago, ousafe said:

I have that the runner "altered the pattern of play", even if he ducked and no contact was made. Interference. FPSR violation.

You see it differently?

 

9 hours ago, Richvee said:

No. If he's close enough to the bag to slide he needs to slide or veer off. 

 Ducking at the bag never was, nor is a legit attempt to avoid a FPSR violation.

Whatever he does at the bag other than a legal slide still needs to hinder, or illegally contact or alter the play to be a violation. Just like going in standing up, if he goes in ducking, and doesn't make contact, hinder, or alter the play, it's nothing. 

In this particular clip, it's still a violation. He clearly alters the play. 

 

8 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Did the runner run or slide in a direction away from the defender?

 

7 hours ago, noumpere said:

I don't see "duck" (or similar)  in the rules.  I see "legal slide" and "run away" (or similar).

 

If the fielder is at the base as in the OP, it's a violation.  (I would say if the fielder is away from the base it's not a violation, but I recognize others have a different opinion on that.)

 

ted-lasso-come-on-man.gif

 

fe0.gif

 

Obviously I stopped speaking English somewhere along the way . . . 

 

This is some kind of performance art, right?

 

  • Confused 1
The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted

I will try for a third time . . . I am not referencing the specific play posted.  I am referencing the act of ducking and not interfering.

The play posted was NOT called interference in a state championship game three (or so) years ago.  Would it be called UNDER THE NEW INTERPRETATION today?  Ducking seems to be covered in the language of the rule, but not in the new interpretation.

I was not asking about opinions on the play/call.  (I'm not trying to discount those, but y'all are busy staring at the trees and not seeing the forest.)

ousafe

ousafe

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

not interfering

I would just go with this ^^ - and then reference the corresponding discussion up-thread. Especially if you don't want us to look at the referenced video.

The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted

Never mind.  My actual question is being lost in the rhetoric.  I’ll just wait for an official clarification.  
 

Mean time, I’m calling it as I always have: no interference is no interference; interference is interference.  I don’t care how he goes in.  These interps are garbage if they can’t get their crap together.

 

  • Like 1
JSam21

JSam21

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Never mind.  My actual question is being lost in the rhetoric.  I’ll just wait for an official clarification.  
 

Mean time, I’m calling it as I always have: no interference is no interference; interference is interference.  I don’t care how he goes in.  These interps are garbage if they can’t get their crap together.

 

I think it is you that is missing the point. It is obvious, to me at least, that the runner has two options: Legally slide directly into the base or run/slide in a direction away from the defender. If the runner doesn't do either of those things and they are in the vicinity of the base, then they are in violation. It is pretty simple. 

 

Running directly at a defender at the base while ducking, isn't one of those things.

 

  • Like 3
Tborze

Tborze

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

I will try for a third time . . . I am not referencing the specific play posted.  I am referencing the act of ducking and not interfering.

The play posted was NOT called interference in a state championship game three (or so) years ago.  Would it be called UNDER THE NEW INTERPRETATION today?  Ducking seems to be covered in the language of the rule, but not in the new interpretation.

I was not asking about opinions on the play/call.  (I'm not trying to discount those, but y'all are busy staring at the trees and not seeing the forest.)

New interpretation?  Or clarification?

As far as I can see, nothing has changed for FED as to how they want it called. If you go in illegally and INTERFERE, it’s a violation. Ducking while standing as you go straight in is not a legal slide, no interp needed. IMO that is interference by rule. 
 

Fed still requires hindrance, unlike NCAA! < added for @MadMax ;) And you too @JSam21 

JSam21

JSam21

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Tborze said:

New interpretation?  Or clarification?

As far as I can see, nothing has changed for FED as to how they want it called. If you go in illegally and INTERFERE, it’s a violation. Ducking while standing as you go straight in is not a legal slide, no interp needed. IMO that is interference by rule. 
 

Fed still requires hindrance, unlike NCAA! < added for @MadMax ;) And you too @JSam21 

NFHS 8.4.2 Situation Y in the 2024 Casebook. 

 

  • Like 1
noumpere

noumpere

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

Never mind.  My actual question is being lost in the rhetoric.  I’ll just wait for an official clarification.  
 

Mean time, I’m calling it as I always have: no interference is no interference; interference is interference.  I don’t care how he goes in.  These interps are garbage if they can’t get their crap together.

 

While that is correct, it's not (imho) complete.

 

Call the FPSR (a) if there's interference, OR (b) if the player does not slide or veer.

 

Might not have been (a) in the video or whatever play you are asking about, but there was (b),

  • Like 1
Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

NFHS 8.4.2 Situation Y in the 2024 Casebook. 

 

"if the fielder is there, attempting a play". The most recent Youtube video in this thread is an example of that. But if the pivot man goes past the base we differ in whether the runner has to slide.

  • Like 1
The Man in Blue

The Man in Blue

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

I think it is you that is missing the point. It is obvious, to me at least, that the runner has two options: Legally slide directly into the base or run/slide in a direction away from the defender. If the runner doesn't do either of those things and they are in the vicinity of the base, then they are in violation. It is pretty simple. 

 

Running directly at a defender at the base while ducking, isn't one of those things.

 

Since I don’t understand the intent of my own question (yeah, yeah, that’s it), I’m tapping out.

Thank you for all the help.

 

Tborze

Tborze

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

NFHS 8.4.2 Situation Y in the 2024 Casebook. 

 

There is no Y

Velho

Velho

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Tborze said:

There is no Y

Should we all stop searching for ours then?

  • Confused 1
urout17

urout17

Posted
Posted

So, after reading this ENTIRE thread, I think I finally understand. If it's ball four you're out so take your base.  If it's a fair batted ball you might be safe provided it's a Tuesday night game with one bank of lights out.  Got it! 

Seriously, I do appreciate all the comments.

 

  • Like 1
MadMax

MadMax

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

I’m calling it as I always have: no interference is no interference; interference is interference.  I don’t care how he goes in.  These interps are garbage if they can’t get their crap together.

You (and others) keep using / linking / viewing / connecting it to (or as) Interference. A/the Force Play Slide Rule is not an Interference rule. 

As my boss, a college umpire of a great degree of clout and connections (to big-time PTB in college umpiring), conveys to our umpires – because they, too, come from a myriad of “calling” codes and backgrounds – the College FPSR (which we use) is a “Safety Rule. It is not an Interference rule. It has nothing to do with the throw, or any interfering with it.” 

A great deal of the convolution (mixing up of rule components) comes from OBR (think: tournament and Amer. Legion) being used alongside / in parallel to NFHS, for administering the same players, game to game. And, (often) conjunctively, the same umpires, who are administering the (that) game’s proceedings (rightly so), not that rule code’s specifics and particulars. 

The emphasis here is that the Casebook Interpretation is pushing the NFHS FPSR more towards the “College standard” – which takes a significant amount of judgement out of the play, instead making it a binary logic-fork (yes/no) – instead of towards this ambiguous, judgement-laden, “interference vs. not-interference” decide-on-the-fly call that it has been in the past. We’ve already established that the College standard is to enforce a/the rule “as written”. While I concede that doesn’t necessarily translate, transpose, or apply rule-for-rule from NCAA to NFHS – nor should it in every case – this is where the trends are headed. 

And when we understand that the FPSR is a safety rule, not an INT rule, it starts to fit… and makes our job easier and more effective. 

  • Like 1
JSam21

JSam21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tborze said:

There is no Y

Are you looking in the 2024 NFHS Casebook? 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...