Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
[About a ball lodged in the glove and Carl's ruling/illustration on the play:] It isn't FED's. They haven't issued one. And accordiong to Carl it isn't an interp at all. I then began to wonder if other BRD "interpretations" were also not interpretations. Never got an answer.
|
Well, now we have an answer. According to Tim Stevens, B. Elliott Hopkins has ruled that a ball lodged in the glove may
NOT be thrown for an out. Instead, it is immediately dead and each runner, including the batter runner, is awarded two bases measured from the time of the pitch.
Tim called to say that he remembered such a ruling from a play that happened in California a few years ago. Apparently, the IHAA interpreter remembered the same thing. But, according to Elliott....
I'll stop there. Tim is preparing an article for Officiating.com that will explain the history of the rule and how conflicting interpretations came about. Expect that article within a week, he said.
For now, suffice it to say that the ruling in the BRD is correct. But it is now not an illustration of a ruling but a report of one. The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied.
Mr. Hopkins told Tim that the ruling would be #1 on the NFHS website this spring.
Think about it for a second: The thread here on the Forum and my BRD play are
responsible for an NFHS official interpretation. Generally, those come out of questions from coaches. Everyone connected with this discussion should be proud of his part in it and offer thanks to the FED for their prompt resolution of the matter.
As I told Tim, things are different now that Rumble has retired. Said he: "You bet! I like Elliot. He listens."
We're listening, too, Tim.
If you are in doubt about the accuracy of my post, Tim said you should email him:
[email protected].