NFHS Situation 13

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

You are welcome, Carl.........LOL


Freix


[/B]

Steve:

As you well know, I never read all of any of your posts. (The only two I ever finished that were longer than three paragraphs were the pieces I edited for eUmpire.com. Whew!)

But even a blind sow finds an acorn now and then. I take it you also stumbled unwittingly into greymule's answer.

Bravo.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

8.4.2 I is the play that gives rise to the "string theory" -- in FED ball, connect the infielders with a piece of string. IF the ball passes the string, a runner hit with the ball is not out (assuming no intent, of course). If the ball has not passed the string, the runner is out.

Situation 13 (the second half) seems to contradict this ("If no infielder had been in position to make a play, the ball would remain live.")

Good, got it, I understand and like the String Theory.

Anyway, Carl, I don't think you should be so quick to adopt the "new" interpretation: "If the fielder had no chance to field the ball, the runner is NOT OUT." Seems to me to be an error not intended by the rules committee and not merely a rule we don't like.

P-Sz

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Good, got it, I understand and like the String Theory.

Anyway, Carl, I don't think you should be so quick to adopt the "new" interpretation: "If the fielder had no chance to field the ball, the runner is NOT OUT." Seems to me to be an error not intended by the rules committee and not merely a rule we don't like.

P-Sz

Pat:

In 41 years I have never known the FED to go back on one of its "official interpretations" unless the Committee drastically altered black letter law.

Bank on it: They have gone the "common sense" route, which I applaud in this instance.

Fans, players, coaches alike: Everyone has always had a problem with the idea that a runner hit by a batted ball is out UNLESS some fielder was near enough to make a play.

Again and again, we read on the Internet: No fielder could get close to the ball, it hit the runner, and they called him out. Why? That can't be interference.

Well, they have a point. If the batted ball isn't headed for a fielder, and if it hits a runner, it stays in the infield and likely prevents the offense from realizing its full potential.

"Interference, my left garter!" as my Aunt Gertie in Manila says.

FED answered those complaints. In their games, now, a runner hit by a batted ball is not out UNLESS a fielder BEHIND the runner is in position to make a play or the ball passes a fielder.

Example: R2, 0 out, B1 is a stone cold bunter. F5 creeps well in (the wheel is on), so F6 will cover third in case the ball is bunted too hard. R2 decides to steal and instead of bunting B1 swings away. The ball hits R2 about fifteen feet from second.

Picture the scene: F5 is well onto the grass, favoring the foul line; F6 is charging from his shortstop position toward third. F4 has moved toward second, but he's still on the right side of the infield.

There is nothing but air and a runner between a single to the outfield and a run scored. But in NCAA and OBR, since no infielder has a reasonable chance to field the ball (NCAA) or the ball will not pass within arm's reach (PBUC ruling for OBR):

The runner is out!

But not in FED, says the interpretation.

I like it!

Don't you?

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Steve:

As you well know, I never read all of any of your posts. (The only two I ever finished that were longer than three paragraphs were the pieces I edited for eUmpire.com. Whew!)

But even a blind sow finds an acorn now and then. I take it you also stumbled unwittingly into greymule's answer.

Bravo.

Carl, all on the boards understand your honesty.

That's why once again I say.......you are welcome.


Freix

[Patrick Szalapski]

I understand, Mr. Childress. I just wish there was a rule (y'know, in the "rules book") to back this up. Usually, the interpretations published by FED at least try to be based on a rule. I understand that the interpretations have the same force as rules, but this is a change that should be in the book, don't you think?

P-Sz

[greymule]

If in fact the second part of Situation 13 defines new case law, then BRD 298-115 is out of date and incorrect. It is the SAME PLAY in every relevant particular: (1) runner is hit unintentionally by batted ball, (2) runner was in contact with a base, (3) ball did not pass an infielder, and (4) no infielder could have made a play.

Element #2 above is crucial here. Situation 13 and BRD 298-115 both deal with a runner ON THE BAG. If that were not a crucial element, why mention it at all?

If this new interpretation applies also to runners OFF the base, then we can throw out everything about "passes an infielder other than the pitcher" and write a simple new rule: "The runner is out if he is hit by a fair batted ball on which a fielder could have made a play. Exception: runner in contact with a base on a declared infield fly."

I'm asking the NJ interpreter tonight.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
If in fact the second part of Situation 13 defines new case law, then BRD 298-115 is out of date and incorrect. It is the SAME PLAY in every relevant particular: (1) runner is hit unintentionally by batted ball, (2) runner was in contact with a base, (3) ball did not pass an infielder, and (4) no infielder could have made a play.

Element #2 above is crucial here. Situation 13 and BRD 298-115 both deal with a runner ON THE BAG. If that were not a crucial element, why mention it at all?

If this new interpretation applies also to runners OFF the base, then we can throw out everything about "passes an infielder other than the pitcher" and write a simple new rule: "The runner is out if he is hit by a fair batted ball on which a fielder could have made a play. Exception: runner in contact with a base on a declared infield fly."

I'm asking the NJ interpreter tonight.

Greymule:

Here's what you're facing:

The BRD just appeared this year, so I can't fix the Section until the 2003 edition. (grin)

More importantly, the NJ interpreter may be like so many people on the Internet: "Well, if it ain't in the book...."

I never understand umpires.

Consider: The OBR book says the pitcher may pinch hit only for the DH.

And if he hits for someone else?

Ah, no penalty listed. So I asked Mike Fitzpatricak, and he says: "Well, thus and so." (Section 66 in the 2002 BRD.)

I post that official interpretation to a newsgroup called rec.sport.officiaing, and several "members," led by Scott Taylor (you think the novelist is slow?), say: "That's wrong!"

That's WRONG?

Who the hell are they kidding? The official answer to a problem is NEVER wrong.

That's what might happen with the NJ interpreter.

Look, the sky will not fall if an official interpretation by a rules entity contradicts black letter law. Generally, the FED and NCAA change the book. OBR never does.

If the batter-runner interferes before touching first base, where do any other runners go? Time of the pitch? Time of the interference? Could a run score?

Now, Pat suggests that maybe the interpretation was made by somebody who, like me on my first cursory reading, didn't fully understand the import of the language. If so, surely an umpire has brought it to their attention by now, and it's still there.

Let us know what the big boy in the Garden State says.

[greymule]

The interpreter was not at the meeting last night, but I contacted him and requested help with a couple of plays that were widely debated on this site. He will be happy to help, but I won't have anything from him for at least a few days.

For further confusion, see what I'm about to post on that string regarding inadvertent appeals. I think it's "Fed."