The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Batter interference in HFHS (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/3742-batter-interference-hfhs.html)

rrcoleman Tue Jan 15, 2002 03:22pm

In the NFHS rulebook, the PENALTY section of 7-3 says, in part "For infraction of Art. 5: When there are two outs, the batter is out". I won't quote the remainder of the section. I think it's just poorly written, but, as written, it doesn't seem to qualify the quoted statement which leads me to wonder whether if there are two outs, the batter interferes and the catcher throws out a stealing runner, is the batter still out instead of the runner being out and interference ignored. The PENALTY section being discussed here could lead me to think so and therefore to think this is a deliberate difference from the case under Pro rules, but, again, I think this section is just very poorly worded.

Case book play 7.3.5A implies that in the example I've given, the runner, not the batter is out which is what I suspect to be the intent.

Does anyone else have any opinion on this matter?


PeteBooth Tue Jan 15, 2002 05:20pm

<i> Originally posted by rrcoleman </i>

<b> In the NFHS rulebook, the PENALTY section of 7-3 says, in part "For infraction of Art. 5: When there are two outs, the batter is out". I won't quote the remainder of the section. I think it's just poorly written, but, as written, it doesn't seem to qualify the quoted statement which leads me to wonder whether if there are two outs, the batter interferes and the catcher throws out a stealing runner, is the batter still out instead of the runner being out and interference ignored. The PENALTY section being discussed here could lead me to think so and therefore to think this is a deliberate difference from the case under Pro rules, but, again, I think this section is just very poorly worded.

Case book play 7.3.5A implies that in the example I've given, the runner, not the batter is out which is what I suspect to be the intent. </b>

IMO, the point you are missing is that if F2 throws out a runner, Interference is ignored which means forget about any Interference Penalty because in essence there was no interference.

Here's the ruling from the Case Play you mention

<b> RULING: </b> If R1 is TAGGED OUT despite batter's interference, the interference is <b> IGNORED </b> and with less than 2 outs ball remains alive.

If there are two outs and F2 throws out the runner, then the scoring is r1/r2 caught stealing and B1 leads off the next inning.

Hope this clarifies things for you

Pete Booth


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1