[David Emerling]

I just attended our State Meeting last night. They handed out the 2019 Preseason Guide. In it, on page 11, there is an article entitled: "In the Swing of Things: Follow-through Interference" that discusses both backswing and follow-through situations and rulings.

One paragraph says:

If no play is in progress when contact occurs, there cannot be interference. The pitch is called a strike, the ball is dead and no runner shall advance on the play.

They're discussing follow-through interference above. Then they give a play example along with the ruling.

Play: With a runner on first and a 1-0 count, B1 swings and misses the pitch. His follow through on the swing comes around and hits the ball out of F2's glove immediately after he securely catches the pitch. R1 then goes safely into second base. Ruling: In NFHS, B1 is out and R1 returns to first base.

This seems contradictory. In the above play, there was no play in progress at the time of the follow-through interference. It seems that the umpire should rule the play dead and simply return R1 to 1st. Now, if R1 were stealing, or if F2 was attempting to pickoff R1, that would be different. It seems R1 is only advancing because of the follow-through interference.