Here's why I don't really like the NFHS concept of an "initial play":
Quote:
2.47.3 SITUATION B:
With R1 on second, B2's batted ball is deflected by (a) F1; or (b) F5. In both cases the ball goes directly to F6 who makes an attempt to field the ball and make a play. R1 makes contact with F6 preventing her from making the play.
RULING: In (a), R1 is out for interfering with F6 since the ball was deflected by the pitcher. F6 is still considered to be making the initial play on the batted ball. In (b), since the ball has been touched by a fielder other than the pitcher, R1 has not interfered with F6. If F6 is not in possession of the ball, she has committed obstruction for impeding R1. (2-36; 2-47-2; 8-4-3b; 8-6-10a)
|
So you have the exact same thing happening at the shortstop position. But in one case, R1 is guilty of interference, while in the other, F6 is guilty of obstruction.
Why is that? The other rule sets require the runner to intentionally interfere with the fielder trying to field the deflected batted ball, regardless who initially deflected it. But for some reason, NFHS treats the pitcher differently here.
FED really should join the other sanctions that recognize the "step and reach" theory on a batted ball. If a batted ball deflects off a fielder and she's still within a step and reach of that ball, the runner must avoid her. Otherwise, the batted ball is considered loose, and the runner is only guilty if she intentionally hinders a fielder fielding that loose ball. That should apply to all fielders, including the pitcher.