FPSR in NFHS (Fed)?

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

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.

I'm not an NCAA umpire  

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

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'  

I think FED could do themselves and some umpires a favore by making FPSR a separate rule, instead of just including it, almost as an afterthought, in the rule about legal slides in general. 

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, maven said:

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.

I think that is the heart of the problem in NFHS.

For a good many years, NFHS beat into us "a runner NEVER HAS TO SLIDE."  This led us to "needing interference" to call any violation.  As I mentioned earlier, the game has changed and now NFHS is trying to catch up with that.  However, they still don't want to walk away from this "never has to slide" mantra and fix THE RULE to line up with the new expectations.

If we are saying the things runners are doing are more dangerous than our previously held belief about the danger of sliding, then we need to come out and SAY THAT.  "When applying this rule, we are not calling runners out for interfering.  We are calling them out for violating the rule and creating an unsafe situation."

[Thunderheads]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I think that is the heart of the problem in NFHS.

For a good many years, NFHS beat into us "a runner NEVER HAS TO SLIDE."  This led us to "needing interference" to call any violation.  As I mentioned earlier, the game has changed and now NFHS is trying to catch up with that.  However, they still don't want to walk away from this "never has to slide" mantra and fix THE RULE to line up with the new expectations.

If we are saying the things runners are doing are more dangerous than our previously held belief about the danger of sliding, then we need to come out and SAY THAT.  "When applying this rule, we are not calling runners out for interfering.  We are calling them out for violating the rule and creating an unsafe situation."

See Richvee's comment above ....   agree

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

For a good many years, NFHS beat into us "a runner NEVER HAS TO SLIDE." 

 

That's still true, but it's not sufficient.

If a runner slides, he must do so properly.  I f a runner continues to run (chooses not to slide), he must do so properly.

 

The definition / requirements for "properly" depend on the specific play.

It's kind of like the "F1 may not throw to an unoccupied base" rule -- people forget the second half ("except for the purpose of making a play").

Or the "a pitcher may not deceive the runner" language -- forgetting the (implied) "illegally."

Good instructors, including many of those who post here try to help others understand the whole rule, and not just the short-phrase summary.  Some (generically; no implications about anyone) seem to refuse to listen.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

That's still true, but it's not sufficient.

If a runner slides, he must do so properly.  I f a runner continues to run (chooses not to slide), he must do so properly.

 

The definition / requirements for "properly" depend on the specific play.

It's kind of like the "F1 may not throw to an unoccupied base" rule -- people forget the second half ("except for the purpose of making a play").

Or the "a pitcher may not deceive the runner" language -- forgetting the (implied) "illegally."

Good instructors, including many of those who post here try to help others understand the whole rule, and not just the short-phrase summary.  Some (generically; no implications about anyone) seem to refuse to listen.

My point isn't about understanding the rule, but in understanding (or making the argument) as to why NFHS needs to update the language.

You cannot say "If a runner slides, he must do so properly.  If a runner continues to run (chooses not to slide), he must do so properly." and then say it is NOT an interference rule.

If it truly is a safety rule, then it must be clearly defined since we no longer have judgement over whether it impacted the play or not.  NCAA has a portion of that right in saying YOU CANNOT SLIDE HERE (although they could clean up the definition/delineation of where "here" is).  

NFHS cannot continue to just say, "Well, they are doing it that way, so just twist and convolute our rulebook to get there."

 

[johnnyg08]

On 6/4/2024 at 1:11 PM, Richvee said:

I think FED could do themselves and some umpires a favore by making FPSR a separate rule, instead of just including it, almost as an afterthought, in the rule about legal slides in general. 

The best parts about FPSR are in the Definitions.

[JSam21]

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The best parts about FPSR are in the Definitions.

And the relative portions to our situation.

1) If the base runner is on the same side of the base as the defender, they didn't slide in a direction away from the defender. They don't have to make contact or alter the play for a violation, they just have to be in the same direction as the defender.

2) A direct line between the two bases is just that. If they aren't in that direct line, between the two edges of the base, and they are in the direction of the defender, they are in violation. 

[Tborze]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

And the relative portions to our situation.

1) If the base runner is on the same side of the base as the defender, they didn't slide in a direction away from the defender. They don't have to make contact or alter the play for a violation, they just have to be in the same direction as the defender.

2) A direct line between the two bases is just that. If they aren't in that direct line, between the two edges of the base, and they are in the direction of the defender, they are in violation. 

One question. 
 

Does the runner determine his own base path?

Ex: 1 out, R2 and R1. F3 not holding R1. 
R1 leads off deep towards RF along with F3. GB to F5 who throws to F4 who is on the RF side of 2nd base. R1 slides into 2nd in a straight line from his lead off position which is to the RF side of the bag, not in a direct line between the two bases. ILLEGAL?  
 

Ok, two questions!  

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, Tborze said:

One question. 
 

Does the runner determine his own base path?

Ex: 1 out, R2 and R1. F3 not holding R1. 
R1 leads off deep towards RF along with F3. GB to F5 who throws to F4 who is on the RF side of 2nd base. R1 slides into 2nd in a straight line from his lead off position which is to the RF side of the bag, not in a direct line between the two bases. ILLEGAL?  
 

Ok, two questions!  

VALID questions .... and I think this is what some of us are leaning towards when we say FED could use a graphic like NCAA is using for FPSR so there's NO questions/variations/interpretations.    Like, this year when FED put in a case play that clarified 'going in standing up' (FPSR)

[JSam21]

29 minutes ago, Tborze said:

One question. 
 

Does the runner determine his own base path?

Ex: 1 out, R2 and R1. F3 not holding R1. 
R1 leads off deep towards RF along with F3. GB to F5 who throws to F4 who is on the RF side of 2nd base. R1 slides into 2nd in a straight line from his lead off position which is to the RF side of the bag, not in a direct line between the two bases. ILLEGAL?  
 

Ok, two questions!  

Yes they do... However that has nothing to do with their slide into a base on a force play. It isn't a straight line from their position, the slide has to be a straight line between the two bases. That means, that they need to be inside the edge of the base closest to the defender. 

 

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

R1 leads off deep towards RF along with F3.

I think 2-32-2 f is pretty clear. 

 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

Does the runner determine his own base path?

 

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I think 2-32-2 f is pretty clear. 

 

As Johnny showed and @JSam21 said: it has nothing to do with base path. It's about the direct line between the two bases.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

One question. 
 

Does the runner determine his own base path?

Ex: 1 out, R2 and R1. F3 not holding R1. 
R1 leads off deep towards RF along with F3. GB to F5 who throws to F4 who is on the RF side of 2nd base. R1 slides into 2nd in a straight line from his lead off position which is to the RF side of the bag, not in a direct line between the two bases. ILLEGAL?  
 

Ok, two questions!  

That has been my dispute on the interpretations lying their money on "a direct line between the two bases."  That is NOT the same thing as a direct line to the base.  A direct line between the two bases is impractical.

Are we going to need a runner's lane and a safety base at second base?  😋

[The Man in Blue]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

As Johnny showed and @JSam21 said: it has nothing to do with base path. It's about the direct line between the two bases.

Which is what is making this nonsensical.  A runner does not run in a direct line between two bases.  EVER.

[Thunderheads]

not the best example, but ... I think NFHS could go just a small step further by adding a diagram similar to NCAA.  Probably not technically correct, but ... you get the idea  

 

[johnnyg08]

4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

not the best example, but ... I think NFHS could go just a small step further by adding a diagram similar to NCAA.  Probably not technically correct, but ... you get the idea  

 

I think for practical purposes, I can agree with this. 

[Velho]

27 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Which is what is making this nonsensical.  A runner does not run in a direct line between two bases.  EVER.

This is station to station though and is a safety rule so that requirement doesn't seem onerous to me (plus, even with R1 taking a 5 feet off the through line they'll only be a few degrees of by the time they slide (either they can straighten-up or can close enough to be judged "directly in between").

There is, at least, one other dictates to run in a straight line: RLI requires it, granted it's 15" askew from HP-1B through line, but from 45ft to about 87ft the runner has to run in a straight line.

[JSam21]

51 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Which is what is making this nonsensical.  A runner does not run in a direct line between two bases.  EVER.

The rule isn't saying that they need to run there...

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

The rule isn't saying that they need to run there...

I saw a coach take advantage of that by having his runners banana to turn the corner at 2B even though they were dead ducks. They did this when they anticipated the pivot man going to the outside and made him adjust the throw. The slide from that point was direct to the bag but no one picked up on it not being on a direct line between the bases.

[johnnyg08]

17 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I saw a coach take advantage of that

Naturally

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Velho said:

This is station to station though and is a safety rule so that requirement doesn't seem onerous to me (plus, even with R1 taking a 5 feet off the through line they'll only be a few degrees of by the time they slide (either they can straighten-up or can close enough to be judged "directly in between").

There is, at least, one other dictates to run in a straight line: RLI requires it, granted it's 15" askew from HP-1B through line, but from 45ft to about 87ft the runner has to run in a straight line.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with the concept or what we are trying to accomplish.  My dispute is with the way NFHS is handling this.

A legal slide is defined as within reach of the bag.  On a force play, a slide must be in a direct line between the bases.  A slide within reach and on the side of the fielder is, BY NFHS VERBIAGE (but not what they are trying to achieve), a legal slide in a direct line between the two bases.

No part of that says that the runner’s BODY must be in a direct line between two bases.  So, if the runner is running 24” to the left of a straight line drawn between first and second base and he slides within reach, he is sliding (with his hand) in a direct line between the two bases and in a manner that is, by written rule, legal.

Yes, I agree we need to clean up play.  So FIX it, don’t just say it.

A novice umpire should be able to read the RULE BOOK (nothing else) and call a game to the expected standards.  All of this legislating by case play/interp/Texas e-mails are the equivalent to the house rules your family uses when you play a board game.

How do you win the game of Uno?  How many stacks/passes can be played consecutively?

How do you get out of jail in Monopoly?  How much do you collect when you land on Free Parking?

These are very common household games that very few people play by the written rules.  This is fine as long as you are playing with family/friends who also know the oral tradition being handed down.  What happens when you are asked to back it up?  What happens when you play somewhere else?  (Yes, this lesson came from a heated game of Uno that occurred in my classroom.)

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

The rule isn't saying that they need to run there...

But it says they can and that the runner chooses his path.

[JSam21]

11 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

But it says they can and that the runner chooses his path.

On a force play, the runner must SLIDE in a straight line between the bases.

[The Man in Blue]

5 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

On a force play, the runner must SLIDE in a straight line between the bases.

No, it says a direct line, not a straight line, but OK … A slide with the hand out from that position is still a straight line.  The part I am pointing out that is missing is FEET TO THE BASE.
 

This is the point where I say “We’re playing ball” and walk away from the coach because he is adding nothing new to the conversation, just reiterating the same point I already shot down.