FED Rules- Runner hit by fair batted ball???
 

I just attended my local associations HS Rules interpretation meeting and am now baffeled by an ruling given by our interpretator.

A hand-out given to the membership at the beginning of the clinic has the following included-
Additional Note: A batted ball which hits a runner that is not declared out by rule. The ball is immediately declared dead. The runner is granted the next base and the batter-runner is granted first base, other runners advance if forced.
We were told that this ruling and interpretation is an additional note that should have been included in the 2006 Rules but was erroneously left out. I'm having a hard time accepting this ruling as it seems to punish the offense for no reason.
Has anyone heard of this?

I do not understand, did they give an example of when/how the rule should be applied?

Example Given at clinic
 

The example that was given (after I questioned this ruling) was as follows:

SITUATION: R1, R3, less than 2 outs. Infield playing in. Ground ball batted toward F4, goes thru F4's legs and hits advancing R1 immediatelt in back of fielder. As soon as R3 see ball pass F4, he advances toward home plate.

RULING: Ball declared immediately dead. R1 to second, BR to first and R3 back to third (base occupied at the time of the dead ball).

My contention is, 1) why is the ball dead? 2) why is R3 returned to third? It seems as though this penalizes the offense because the defense couldn't make the play?:confused:

Sounds like horsebleep to me. Why on earth would you kill the ball in this situation. That would go against all other books. Of course, nothing the FED does surprises me anymore.:confused:

Steve- I agree, the big issue is that since the rule book doesn't say the ball is dead, and there is no mention of this in the case book, if this TWP were to happen, and the ruling was applied as written above, this is certainly a protestable situation, and one that will likely be upheld!

Thank you guys! I thought I was losing my mind or something!

OK SO WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL NOTE?

Is this just BE or a local rule? I know you did not make it up! It was given to you for a reason. What I am trying to figure out: is the a FED ruling for this year for ALL states, or a local or your state rule???

coach- That's why I thought I'd ask here, if this is a new FED ruling, someone other than me would have heard about this. I think I'll be hard pressed to rule this play in the manner that was suggested by the interpreter.
A
s a side note, this interpreter NEVER admits to making a mistake on a rule. I've questioned some of his OBR interpretations, and after finding the correct application either in the book or from some pros I know, he always tells me, "That's is (not) what I said!"

Someone's been smoking something ...

The only way I can think of this play would be a deflected batted ball that then hits a runner and the fielder doesn't have a chance to make a play.

But why would you kill the play? This is just a Play On situation.

Maybe someone else can make sense of this, but that's an awful ruling as far as I can tell.

Thanks
David

This is a "local" ruling. We aren't using it where I work.

sounds like this interp comes from 5-1-1-f-2, a fair batted ball becomes dead if it hits a runner after passing an infielder and another fielder could have made a play on the ball.

however, looking at 8-4-2-k shows that in the situation outlined above, the runner is out.

My guess is that someone has their wires crossed. That interp is not being used in Arkansas.

...but nothing in the sitch indicates that another fielder could have made a play on the ball. That's the 'exception' allowed for a drawn-in infield, or so I thought. *shrug*

Im with the others, I cant see this being anything other than a play-on, besed strictly on the case play given.

Well,
 

According to Federation there was "no sentence left out" of any ruling. Again, it appears that some power somewhere has tried to "fix" things their own way.

Sheese,