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 Tue Jan 15, 2002, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2
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?

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 15, 2002, 05:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Originally posted by rrcoleman

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.


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

RULING: If R1 is TAGGED OUT despite batter's interference, the interference is IGNORED 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
__________________
Peter M. Booth
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 03:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1