|
I don't think 8.4.3 Sit A and Sit. C are consistent.
But in Sit A (F6 grabs runner headed toward 3B), consider 2 scenarios:
A - F5 receives throw w/ a foot on 3B (force play), or
B - F5 receives throw off the base & doesn't try to tag R1, who's being held by the SS, according to the Sit.
R2 has hesitated or fallen & isn't quite to 2B yet. F5 throws to 2B & the throw barely beats F2.
In A, if handled as in other comments, the play is killed (immediate dead ball) as soon as F5 receives the throw & R1 is "put out". It's umpire's judgment
where to put R2, though R2 wasn't really affected by the obs. [Which seems a problem to me -- awarding bases to a runner not affected by the obstruction.] She can't be put on 1B -- the batter-runner is there. If R2 was more than halfway to 2B, she probably is awarded 2B, though she was not affected by the obstruction at all.
In B, R2 is out & play continues if batter-runner does anything -- even though R2 was no more affected by the obstruction than in A.
In A, that's certainly not declaring a dead ball "at the end of playing action."
And the defense gets an out merely because F5's foot was off the base when she got the throw. What a strange way for the defense to get a break.
What I'm being advised is to ignore the comments in the casebook & apply a rule that doesn't say when to declare dead ball, but is generally considered to imply that dead ball should be declared when the "out" happens.
That rule & the casebook comments need some work. The rule itself is not clear as to the timing of the dead ball call and the explanatory casebook comments are, evidently, wrong.
Somehow, if I'm a coach who's affected by this application of the rule & I read those comments, I'm not going to be satisfied with the explanation of "But that's how it's supposed to be called, despite those comments, which are wrong."
NFHS needs to amend the rule or delete those comments from the casebook.
|