Interference?

[JJ]

I submitted the play to the NFHS and here's their "official" response -

"I ran your situation by a few committee members and got a consensus that since it was touched by the infielder, it is nothing, ball stays in play and what happens is what happens. Had the ball gotten by the first baseman, untouched, and then hit the base runner with the second baseman in position to make a play, we would then have interference."

Looks like the deflection was the key, so despite what the FED books say about another fielder having a chance to make a play, this situation is NOT considered interference by the runner.

JJ

[CT1]

Common sense tells me that we shouldn't hold a runner responsible for being hit by a deflected ball.

If he does something intentional after the deflection, that's another story.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JJ

I submitted the play to the NFHS and here's their "official" response -

"I ran your situation by a few committee members and got a consensus that since it was touched by the infielder, it is nothing, ball stays in play and what happens is what happens. Had the ball gotten by the first baseman, untouched, and then hit the base runner with the second baseman in position to make a play, we would then have interference."

Looks like the deflection was the key, so despite what the FED books say about another fielder having a chance to make a play, this situation is NOT considered interference by the runner.

JJ

The books don't say anything of the sort with regards to a touched ball. The case play I cited above is nearly verbatim with the OP and states that it is not interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

The books don't say anything of the sort with regards to a touched ball. The case play I cited above is nearly verbatim with the OP and states that it is not interference.

He said it's not INT. You said it's not INT. I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

He said it's not INT. You said it's not INT. I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with.

His last sentence, claiming that the books say something about another fielder having a play.

I also think it's somewhat a waste of time to contact NFHS when this play is in the case book.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

His last sentence, claiming that the books say something about another fielder having a play.

I also think it's somewhat a waste of time to contact NFHS when this play is in the case book.

The last sentence had to do with an UNTOUCHED ball though.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The last sentence had to do with an UNTOUCHED ball though.

No, it didn't. Read the whole post. He is talking only about touched balls. (snickers)

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it didn't. Read the whole post. He is talking only about touched balls. (snickers)

If you're talking about JJ's post, it says untouched, and I didn't see an edit.

So we are talking about untouched balls here

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

No, it didn't. Read the whole post. He is talking only about touched balls. (snickers)

No... he said, "Had the ball gotten by the first baseman, untouched, and ..."