The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 10:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
I have a question - just curiosity since I don't call baseball.

Fed rules - historical.

Was there is the past a Fed baseball rule where a runner could be charged with interference for merely running between a fielder and the batted ball?

Ex: R2. Slow ground ball to the infield. R2 running to 3rd passes between F6 and the ball, but does nothing to show intent to interfere (no slowing, stutter step, nothing - just hauling a-- to 3rd).

Was there ever a Fed rule where this could be called interference?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 11:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
I have a question - just curiosity since I don't call baseball.

Fed rules - historical.

Was there is the past a Fed baseball rule where a runner could be charged with interference for merely running between a fielder and the batted ball?

Ex: R2. Slow ground ball to the infield. R2 running to 3rd passes between F6 and the ball, but does nothing to show intent to interfere (no slowing, stutter step, nothing - just hauling a-- to 3rd).

Was there ever a Fed rule where this could be called interference?
As far as I know, the words "intentional" were always part of the equation when deciding if a runner interfered with a fielder.

Your stich would require the umpire to pay close attention to the play and have a knowledge of the rules to render a decision. Alas, there is sometimes a communications breakdown between neurons in the brain and interference is called when (as in this stich) it shouldn't be.

I would have to say that in your stich, there is no interference.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 01:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 517
Ozzy,
Your missing the question. Dakota, and almost everone else, knows this is not interference. There is a character on the softball board who claims this was a Fed rule in years past, and that mearly pasing in front of a fielder before the ball passed the runner was automatic interference in Fed baseball.

Some of us have flately stated that this was never a rule.

The only person I am sure would have all the Fed books back to 10 years ago would be Carl Childress. If someone had a set of BRDs going back far enough they could also find the proof.

Roger Greene

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 02:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Posts: 340
I'd like to ask - if I can - If a runner hurdles a ball that is rolling to or bouncing to an infielder and does not alter the path of the ball or the play of the infielder, is this considered interference? I had high school coaches last year tell me it was and I am looking for a FED rule that supports that statement.

Thanks
__________________
Tony Smerk
OHSAA Certified
Class 1 Official
Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 03:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
I'd like to ask - if I can - If a runner hurdles a ball that is rolling to or bouncing to an infielder and does not alter the path of the ball or the play of the infielder, is this considered interference? I had high school coaches last year tell me it was and I am looking for a FED rule that supports that statement.

Thanks
No interference.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 03:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
I'd like to ask - if I can - If a runner hurdles a ball that is rolling to or bouncing to an infielder and does not alter the path of the ball or the play of the infielder, is this considered interference? I had high school coaches last year tell me it was and I am looking for a FED rule that supports that statement.

Thanks
No interference.
Thank you.

Confirms what I felt - not what I knew.
I now know.
__________________
Tony Smerk
OHSAA Certified
Class 1 Official
Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 05:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally posted by officialtony
I'd like to ask - if I can - If a runner hurdles a ball that is rolling to or bouncing to an infielder and does not alter the path of the ball or the play of the infielder, is this considered interference? I had high school coaches last year tell me it was and I am looking for a FED rule that supports that statement.

Thanks
Presuming that there is nothing else: no change of runner's path, no stutter-step, nothing to indicate that he's TRYING to interfere [by jumping over the bounding ball]: if all you've got is a runner running & avoiding getting hit by the ball by jumping over it - no way is this interference.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 06:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
I had high school coaches last year tell me . . .

Shall we start a new thread under the topic "Fallacies I've Heard from High School Coaches"?
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 08:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Posts: 340
Please don't.
Because I am relatively new at this, I wanted to be sure my call ( no interference ) was correct.
Do not go to " Coaches say . . . . ..
Please!

I appreciate the clarification I got.
__________________
Tony Smerk
OHSAA Certified
Class 1 Official
Sheffield Lake, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 11:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
What about the original (pre-hijack) question?

Was there EVER a Fed rule that a runner who ran between the fielder and the batted ball was out? (Barring intentional acts.)
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 24, 2005, 11:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
I don't remember any such rule since 1972, and I've checked my rulebooks and haven't found one. But my books only go back to 96, so I can't "prove" I'm right.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1