FPSR in NFHS (Fed)?

[Thunderheads]

40 minutes ago, maven said:

Disagree: grayhawk is right. 

1. BU in B can certainly see this.
2. The FED rule clearly requires sliding on a direct line between the bases, which this is not.
3. The stick is shîtty only because so many umpires can't be arsed to enforce the rule. I recommend becoming part of the solution.

It's not necessarily that's it's NOT a violation, especially now that I have a better view of the play.

But, BU in B ...in a 2 man system can get this, turning away to get the play at first??  Maybe?  That's a long focus on exactly where R1 is sliding to catch before turning away.  And PU will have an even more difficult time.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

But you SHOULD call it in HS. He is clearly not sliding in a direct line between the bases. If we don't clean this stuff up, who will? It is not hard for a runner to slide legally. He clearly chose to slide towards the fielder. His choice, his violation.

I don't disagree, see my response to maven .......

[Thunderheads]

9 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Is their entire body to the left of that arrow?

let's just say ... half in the safe zone, half in the gray zone?  

[JSam21]

1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

let's just say ... half in the safe zone, half in the gray zone?  

Then its a violation... The defender is completely protected in that area.

 

 

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, JSam21 said:

Then its a violation... The defender is completely protected in that area.

 

 

We're talking a HS game now, correct?

[JSam21]

2 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

We're talking a HS game now, correct?

Yes. They have to slide directly into the base in a straight line between the two bases... If they are outside of the base, then they didn't slide in a direct line between the two bases. Now of course that is allowed, as long as they slide in a direction away from the defender. 

[agdz59]

4 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Yes. They have to slide directly into the base in a straight line between the two bases... If they are outside of the base, then they didn't slide in a direct line between the two bases. Now of course that is allowed, as long as they slide in a direction away from the defender. 

Look at his feet - neither of them is headed toward the bag.  I think that angle shows you that.  If you see neither foot headed into the bag it's an easy call. If that runner's left foot was touching the right-most part of the bag, still call it?  I think, strictly speaking, yes. But I'd like to hear how my assignor and association want it called.

Maybe they colored those areas in the diagram gray for a reason. 🙂

[Thunderheads]

7 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Yes. They have to slide directly into the base in a straight line between the two bases... If they are outside of the base, then they didn't slide in a direct line between the two bases. Now of course that is allowed, as long as they slide in a direction away from the defender. 

Yep, yep .. I know I know ......

I was looking at this over the weekend on my phone, (small screen) and I was like, WOW is that picky, but now that I've seen it on my PC screen and was able to stop it, I can see it clearly now.  I will still say, violation or not, ... this is much more difficult to grab in 2 man

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

So you would have (in NFHS) .... the runner ok is he slid here (red arrow)

If the runner slid so the whole body was at the arrow -- sure, it's legal.  That's not what happened in the video -- *maybe* the left most portion of the body was at the right of the arrow, but I think all of the body was to the right of the arrow.  That's a violation in NCAA and in FED.

 

And, yes, I recognize that many player's bodies are wider than 15".  So, make the right foot(assume that's the lead foot and the fielder is to the right from the runner's perspective) touch the base and make the rest of the body be parallel to that arrow.

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

this is much more difficult to grab in 2 man

Haha, EVERYTHING is more difficult to grab in 2 man!

[JSam21]

1 minute ago, Thunderheads said:

Yep, yep .. I know I know ......

I was looking at this over the weekend on my phone, (small screen) and I was like, WOW is that picky, but now that I've seen it on my PC screen and was able to stop it, I can see it clearly now.  I will still say, violation or not, ... this is much more difficult to grab in 2 man

Undoubtedly it is more difficult, as most things are in the two umpire system. But, it isn't impossible. Keys that I look for are if the runner has to grab the base to keep them on it, does the runner slide passed the base to the side or over the top of it. 

[JSam21]

This is the more damning picture of the whole play. Right foot on top of the base and nothing else is within the right edge of the base, putting them in the protected area.

[Thunderheads]

5 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Undoubtedly it is more difficult, as most things are in the two umpire system. But, it isn't impossible. Keys that I look for are if the runner has to grab the base to keep them on it, does the runner slide passed the base to the side or over the top of it. 

Right, ... but typically you're not hanging onto that play that long to see most of that stuff ......

[JSam21]

3 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Right, ... but typically you're not hanging onto that play that long to see most of that stuff ......

As the plate umpire I am. I'm in no position to help with swipes or pulled foot when there is a double play ball. My top priority is the slide. I'll be up near the mound. 

[Thunderheads]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

As the plate umpire I am. I'm in no position to help with swipes or pulled foot when there is a double play ball. My top priority is the slide. I'll be up near the mound. 

Correct, and agree .....but we have to admit, it'll take a lot of work to get a good angle on this slide

[BigBlue4u]

Unfortunately, the rule leaves out the five most important words "And interferes with the fielder."

[Thunderheads]

9 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Unfortunately, the rule leaves out the five most important words "And interferes with the fielder."

YES, ... for FPSR, it most certainly does, because it's all about safety

[JSam21]

4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Unfortunately, the rule leaves out the five most important words "And interferes with the fielder."

It’s not an interference rule in amateur baseball…

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, grayhawk said:

But you SHOULD call it in HS. He is clearly not sliding in a direct line between the bases. If we don't clean this stuff up, who will? It is not hard for a runner to slide legally. He clearly chose to slide towards the fielder. His choice, his violation.

Then we need NFHS needs to give us the ammunition to call it.  We can all agree we are going to call it, but they need to put in the language to back it up.  As it stands, those calling it are relying on their interpretation, not the actual rulebook language, to get there.

The rule says the runner must slide in a direct line between the bases.  A slide off to the side, within reach, and moving forwards is a slide in a direct line between the bases and a legal slide by NFHS rule.  It is not a slide directly to the base, but that is not what the rule requires.  NFHS never defined where the slide had to be aimed, just the direction it had to move in.  A slide angling away from the base and toward the fielder is the illegal action this rule is defining.

NFHS has long played the coward on this rule: they were more afraid of kids injuring themselves because they don't play the game at a frequency or level to learn proper sliding, so they have held on to "sliding not required."  That is no longer the world we live in and they have failed to keep up.  Now they are trying to throw patches on it instead of just fixing it.  We are left to (incorrectly) apply rules and interpretations from other codes and experiences to get to where we should be.

 

[grayhawk]

51 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The rule says the runner must slide in a direct line between the bases.  A slide off to the side, within reach, and moving forwards is a slide in a direct line between the bases and a legal slide by NFHS rule.

I disagree with this statement. You seem to be trying very hard to find a way around the simple language in the rules. The KISS principle applies here. A direct line is just what it sounds like. That said, I don't do HS anymore, so I don't really care that much.

[maven]

12 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Unfortunately, the rule leaves out the five most important words "And interferes with the fielder."

That's the problem that many umpires bring to FPSR. They insist on thinking that it's a flavor of runner INT, and has to involve the same criteria.

It isn't. FPSR is its own rule, its own criteria, its own standards. Hindrance is NOT the key concept for FPSR, positioning and sliding are.

Once we get past that confusion, identifying and calling violations becomes much easier.

[JSam21]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Then we need NFHS needs to give us the ammunition to call it.  We can all agree we are going to call it, but they need to put in the language to back it up.  As it stands, those calling it are relying on their interpretation, not the actual rulebook language, to get there.

The rule says the runner must slide in a direct line between the bases.  A slide off to the side, within reach, and moving forwards is a slide in a direct line between the bases and a legal slide by NFHS rule.  It is not a slide directly to the base, but that is not what the rule requires.  NFHS never defined where the slide had to be aimed, just the direction it had to move in.  A slide angling away from the base and toward the fielder is the illegal action this rule is defining.

NFHS has long played the coward on this rule: they were more afraid of kids injuring themselves because they don't play the game at a frequency or level to learn proper sliding, so they have held on to "sliding not required."  That is no longer the world we live in and they have failed to keep up.  Now they are trying to throw patches on it instead of just fixing it.  We are left to (incorrectly) apply rules and interpretations from other codes and experiences to get to where we should be.

 

Yet you still are caught up on the legality of the slide. No one is saying that the slide is illegal. The location of the slide is what makes it a violation of the force play slide rule.

I'm still not sure how you are getting "in a direct line between the bases" from a runner who is sliding to the left or the right of the base.

It isn't my interpretation, it is the interpretation of the NFHS. You are using your interpretation. 

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Then we need NFHS needs to give us the ammunition to call it.  We can all agree we are going to call it, but they need to put in the language to back it up.  As it stands, those calling it are relying on their interpretation, not the actual rulebook language, to get there.

 

 

It seems clear enough to me (and to most - but not all- of the umpires I worked with over the years. 

[Thunderheads]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Then we need NFHS needs to give us the ammunition to call it.  We can all agree we are going to call it, but they need to put in the language to back it up.  As it stands, those calling it are relying on their interpretation, not the actual rulebook language, to get there.

I think what's trying to be said is this ....... NFHS could take a clue from NCAA and RE-reincorce FPSR with a diagram such as how NCAA did it.  This way, there's ZERO leeway in any portion of the interpretation.  And, I'm not saying that FPSR isn't written clearly in NFHS, ...I'm just suggesting that the NCAA diagram (or some form of) would be 'better'  

[maven]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

NFHS could take a clue from NCAA and RE-reincorce FPSR with a diagram such as how NCAA did it.

I was kinda surprised that NCAA umpires appear to be so dense that they struggle to understand what "direct line between the bases" means. 

As an amateur brain surgeon, this ain't brain surgery.