[BretMan]

I can remember some discussions about this- may have been on a different forum. In a nutshell...

NFHS last year, about this time, issued their 2011 rule interpretations and points of emphasis. Published on their website and in their 2011 Preseason Guide was a sample play about a batter striking out, then trying to run to first when not allowed to (first base occupied, less than two outs).

The unfortunate thing was they published this play to illustrate a 2011 rule change about a retired runner continuing to run and interfering with the defense's opportunity to make an out. That they chose to illustrate this with an uncaught third strike play seemed to generate a lot of confusion.

In the sample play, the runner on first was trying to get back to the bag. The throw to retire that runner hit the retired batter, who had advanced toward first base. The runner on first was called out because of the interference by the retired batter.

The way the play was written and presented, many seemed to think that the out was for interference just because the retired batter advanced toward first base and drew a throw. That wasn't the case. Had the throw not hit he retired batter, or if the runner was not in jeopardy of being put out (for example, just standing on the base), then there would have been no interference.

The misconception many seemed to have was that umpire should call an out anytime a retired batter advanced toward first when not entitled to, whether the throw was interfered with or not, in effect creating an "automatic out" on the runner at first.

It was a case of NFHS modifying a rule (8-6-18), then illustrating the rule change with a play that brought in some other elements that seemed to cause more confusion than it cleared up.

Sound familiar? And, no, I couldn't find the old thread that talked about this, either.