I agree with WMB on this as I have heard it repeatedly referenced in my correspondence with the Fed heavyweight types.
However, I am glad that ASA has not taken this route
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WestMichBlue
Good point, Tom. I took my info from the 2007 book; I should have looked in older books. I can tell you that the NFHS committee has been adamant that they want this interpretation; that a walked batter is subject to interference. It looks like they added new text this year to justify that position. (I don’t know this is true, but if not, it is one heck of a coincidence.)
It is interesting that for years we have talked about “making a play” or attempting to “execute a play,” but until this year no one ever defined a play.
In 2007 the NFHS defined a play as an attempt to retire a batter runner or runner. ASA added the same text to their 2007 book. However, the NFHS also added another definition, which states: “ any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.”
SO – in 2007 NFHS has a definition of play that matches the previously held interpretation of subjecting a walked batter to 3’ lane interference call.
See – it is logical!
WMB
For those calling HS ball, don’t forget that NFHS also added Initial Play this year in the same definition. This codifies the commonly held interpretation of “step and a reach” protection for a fielder that bobbled a batted ball, and made a half hearted attempt to not protect a defender attempting to field some types of balls deflected by other fielders. |