Time for Ya'll to teach me something:

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Case Book 7.3.5 Situation F:

Situation: With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores.

Ruling: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through.

Okay, I admit I am confused on this one because it flies in the face of logic (my logic, so obviously it is failed logic). There is nothing intentional being done.

F2 had a chance to field the strike originally. It seems we are rewarding the defense when they erred.

So, is this the same at the NCAA and OBR level?

I am quite upside down on this one.

T

Umpires who "start" with OBR and then go to FED find this ruling strange.

Umpires who "start" with FED and then go to OBR find the OBR "weak interference" ruling strange.

[Tim C]

Now let's say the ball is secured in F2's glove when the batter's follow-through causes the same result?

Batter would be out on Strike Three but what happens to the runner in NFHS rules?

T

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Now let's say the ball is secured in F2's glove when the batter's follow-through causes the same result?

Batter would be out on Strike Three but what happens to the runner in NFHS rules?

T

If there's a reasonable chance that the defense would have retired the runner without the interference, then get the second out. If there's not such a chance, then return the runner.

Similar to 7.3.5C (and see also 8.4.2L)

[jkumpire]

It's just like any other INF call in FED.

Batter is out, runner return, no added penalty. Just as if it is a regular INF on strike 3.

T, isn't the FED philosophy always to punish the offending team to the maximum extent of the law, so this play just seems to fit with it's existing philosophy?

[Tim C]

"T, isn't the FED philosophy always to punish the offending team to the maximum extent of the law, so this play just seems to fit with it's existing philosophy?"

Sadly it is all the other rules codes that punish with the out closest to home.

With this years change of the runner contacting F5 in foul territory and calling that runner out is the first movement toward consistantly increasing penalties.

The National High School Coaches Association has been trying for the last five years to get rules changes at the FED national level so that the high school rule book more closely mirrors OBR.

T

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Sadly it is all the other rules codes that punish with the out closest to home.

With this years change of the runner contacting F5 in foul territory and calling that runner out is the first movement toward consistantly increasing penalties.

The National High School Coaches Association has been trying for the last five years to get rules changes at the FED national level so that the high school rule book more closely mirrors OBR.

T

Yes, you are right, but does not FED have the other priority; making things as easy to call as possible for its umpires? Max punishment + simple to call/remember= this ruling?

[Tim C]

the answer is in:

You have no sense of humor.

I can live with that.

T

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Tim C

the answer is in:

You have no sense of humor.

I can live with that.

T

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For the record (and the assistance of newer players reading this thread), was Dash joking or serious?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For the record (and the assistance of newer players reading this thread), was Dash joking or serious?

If you have to ask, Tim C. was correct.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

If you have to ask, Tim C. was correct.

I apologize. I forgot that Dash, Tim, and you were perfect and never made mistakes. From now on, I'll assume that everything you three say has no mistakes and I'll never question it.

Maybe next time Dash should include some sort of indication of sarcasm. It's hard to read it in one sentence.

[dash_riprock]

Andrew,

For the record:

1. I have made mistakes here and on the field.
2. I will make more mistakes.
3. I was kidding you with "Time! That's a do-over!".
4. Are you kidding me?