Need NFHS Ruling with References

varefump

R3 on 3rd, one out. The first pitch to right-handed B4 is in the dirt and gets by the catcher and ends up behind the right-handed batter’s box. As R3 races home, B4, while backing out of the box to avoid the possible play at the plate, inadvertently:
a. Kicks the ball away from F2
b. Falls over F2
In both cases, R3 scores easily.
What, if any, call needs to be made?

CecilOne

varefump wrote
R3 on 3rd, one out. The first pitch to right-handed B4 is in the dirt and gets by the catcher and ends up behind the right-handed batter’s box. As R3 races home, B4, while backing out of the box to avoid the possible play at the plate, inadvertently:
a. Kicks the ball away from F2
b. Falls over F2
In both cases, R3 scores easily.
What, if any, call needs to be made?

7-4-4 says the batter is out.
8-6-16 says the runner closest to home is out for interference by anyone but a runner.

Manny A

Just to add, while it's a somewhat different scenario, it does provide guidance on how NFHS treats this dilemma. Here's a play out of their case book:

"8.2.6 SITUATION D: B3 has a count of 3-2 with no runners on base and two outs. On the next pitch B3 swings and misses. The ball bounces off F2's shin guard and lands in front of home plate. As F2 moves out to field the ball, (a) B3 runs into her, knocking her down or (b) B3 unintentionally kicks the ball. RULING: In both (a) and (b), interference; the umpire calls "dead ball" and rules the batterrunner out."

Granted, this is the batter-runner on an uncaught third strike, not a batter on a passed ball. But it goes to the point that NFHS doesn't excuse the offensive player from unintentionally preventing the catcher from making a play, either by running into her or by kicking the ball away from her. The onus is on the offensive player to know what's happening, and to avoid affecting the play.

varefump

So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair. 🙁

Thanks for the rule references.

Andy

8-6-16 would not apply, that is for all other offensive team members since the batter, batter-runner, and runners are all covered specifically in other sections of the rule.

8-2-6d is specific to a batter-runner and a dropped third strike. Neither of which we have in the OP

I would apply 7-4-4. It has two references to the batters actions:

- hindering the catcher by moving OR
- failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate the area on a potential play at the plate

That seems to indicate that the batter is required to get out of the way since the runner is coming home, but the batter can't hinder the catcher while she is vacating the area.

Manny A

Andy wrote
8-2-6d is specific to a batter-runner and a dropped third strike. Neither of which we have in the OP

I would apply 7-4-4.

I agree that 7-4-4 is the right rule. As I said before, the only reason I mentioned case play 8.6.2D is that it contributes to the philosophy that life is unfair when it comes to loose balls around the plate area. 😉

SNIPERBBB

varefump wrote
So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair. 🙁

Thanks for the rule references.

Then the coaches need to teach their batters...if you cant see the ball vacate to the area YOU CAN SEE.

tcannizzo

varefump wrote
So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair. 🙁

If offense "does what she is supposed to do" and hinders the defense making a play, then it is clearly INT.

To your point, she is NOT required to "vacate the area of the plate", she IS required not to hinder the defense making a play.

It may not be the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision, but it is a simple case of "blind justice" for the defense who is entitled to make a play without hindrance.