NFHS Play Question

[whiskers_ump]

2-2 game bottom of 7th, 2 outs. R1 on 2B, batter hits the ball
to RF, F9 gets to ball, turns and relays to F3, cutoff, for
throw to the plate. R1 rounded 3B, coach waving her to continue
homeward. F2 steps two steps twoards 3B, positions herself down
on one knee in such a position she is clearly obstructing the on coming
R1. (She is not about to receive the ball as defined in NFHS rules.)
R1 sees her avenue to HP is blocked, hesitates, starts forward and
attempts to leap over F2, her knee catching F2 in the head. F2 had
taken her mask off and discarded it towards 1B side of field.
NFHS Rule 8-6-10 Note states: Jumping, hurdling and leaping are
all legal attempts to avoid a fielder only if the fielder is lying
on the ground. This rule is under The runner interferes.

I had this and I called the runner out - NFHS Rule 8-4-3b interference
overrides OBS.
I did not eject the player for malicious contact, however,
I did restrict her to the dugout for USC.

How would you have handled this play. I honestly got no arguments from
the offensive coach on my decision after my explanation to her.

[oppool]

Since my rule book is outside in the truck, I am winging this BUT can you have INT if F2 was not in possion or about to recieve(NFHS)?? So I have a OBS on the catcher and then after the play a USC on R1 if not ruled for malicious contact

JMO

Don

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by oppool
Since my rule book is outside in the truck, I am winging this BUT can you have INT if F2 was not in possion or about to recieve(NFHS)?? So I have a OBS on the catcher and then after the play a USC on R1 if not ruled for malicious contact

JMO

Don

Don,

That is an answer I am really hunting for? Remember about
the leaping, jumping, etc. It is characterized as a form
of interference, the way I am reading the rule book. If so, Int overrides the Obs. What do you think?

[WestMichBlue]

I think that you applied the wrong rule. 8.6.10 is interference on a defender attempting to field a batted ball, or attempting to throw.

I would use 8.6.13 "The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact with a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her. Penalty: Runner is called out.

End of discussion. She did not stay on her feet and crash into the defender, so malicious contact is out. No ejection. She attempted to avoid the fielder and caused illegal contact. Out, but no call for USC. There is nothing in Bench & Field Conduct to suggest USC. Closest might be "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play," but I think that is a stretch. I wasn't there, but from here it just looks like the girl used wrong judgment in her attempt to get by the catcher.

WMB

BTW - for those that do not know - there is no physical difference between ejection and restriction to the bench. In both cases the player spends the rest of the game in the dugout. In MI, as I assume is in other states, ejection is cause for further penalties (loss of play for the balance of the day - including DH or tournaments - and lost of next day of play).

[whiskers_ump]

WMB,

Rule 8-6-10 NOTE, pertains to a runner leaping, jumping and/or
hurdling a fielder lying on the ground. This defender was not.
I could not classify the fielder as attempting to field a batted ball,
as attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory, as attempting
to throw the ball nor intentionally interfering with a thrown ball.

I am sure this is a safety rule, but it is placed in the interference
section of the book. May not be USC, but certainly was not in the
spirit of fair play.


Thanks for response.

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Apr 5th, 2004 at 05:56 AM]

[WestMichBlue]

"I could not classify the fielder as attempting to field a batted ball, as attempting to field a fly ball over foul territory, as attempting to throw the ball nor intentionally interfering with a thrown ball."

That's my point, Glen. Based on your statement, the runner did not violate rule 8.6.10. Then the Note attached to 8.6.10 is not valid for your call.

Illegal contact (6.10.13) or "crash" (6.10.14) are also interference, but they are called when you have interference on the defender attempting to make a play on the runner. I think that covers your play, and, based on your description, 6.10.13 appears to be more appropriate.

WMB

Edit added: In your favor, Glen - that note about jumping used to appear as a general note after definitions of interference against a defender about to play on the runner. In the re-write of Rule 8 a couple years ago it was moved to 8.6.10. So I am taking a very technical interpretation of the rule as written today.

[Edited by WestMichBlue on Apr 5th, 2004 at 12:01 AM]

[bethsdad]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WestMichBlue
[B]I think that you applied the wrong rule. 8.6.10 is interference on a defender attempting to field a batted ball, or attempting to throw.

I would use 8.6.13 "The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact with a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her. Penalty: Runner is called out.
Would that rule apply since Glen stated ( she was not about to receive the ball as defined by NFHS rules.) ? Brian

[Steve M]

Glen,
I think I'd have to go with the interference out for illegal contact. From your description, I do not think that I'd have restricted the runner for USC. I suspect that, when the runner hesitated, I'd have called & signalled obstruction. Then, after the out on interference, I'd issue a team warning to the defense - I'm going to consider this obstruction the same thing as a fake tag. I think Fed covers this with bench & field conduct, Rule 3, Section 6?

[Hugo Tafurst2]

Originally posted by Steve M
Glen,
I think I'd have to go with the interference out for illegal contact. From your description, I do not think that I'd have restricted the runner for USC. I suspect that, when the runner hesitated, I'd have called & signalled obstruction. Then, after the out on interference, I'd issue a team warning to the defense - I'm going to consider this obstruction the same thing as a fake tag. I think Fed covers this with bench & field conduct, Rule 3, Section 6?

I've got to go look up 3-6, but I think equating this to a fake tag is not correct.
The way I read the post, it was just obstruction.
F2 set up where she shouldn't have.

I don't disagree with anything else you wrote... I would have the out for interference (leaping). I also could see an USC depending on how it looked.
After all, the runner should know that she can't hurdle. She should know that the reason she can't is because it's unsafe. But I'd have to see how it played out. I don't think an "official warning" - as in called for by the rules - applies, but there is nothing that says I can't bring it to someone's attention...

[CecilOne]

1) The catcher clealy obstructed, so the runner can not be out between 3rd and home, unless interference follows.

2) the jh&l note is obviously in the wrong place because of the usual great editing (by our national education body) of "the book". It probably belongs in Art 13.

3) A USC has to depend on perceived intent, not stupidity or bad judgement. "attempts to leap over F2" does not sound like USC intent (malicious contact in 3-6).

4) I don't agree with calling this a fake tag unless F2 made a tagging motion.

5) The causing illegal contact rule (8-6-13), given the jh&l note applies, so I agree with:
" use 8.6.13 "The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact with a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her. Penalty: Runner is called out."
Unless, the "immediate act of making a play on her" applies to illegal contact as well as "alters the actions of the fielder". Is OBS w/o the ball "making a play"?

[oppool]

I am posting in here to bring this play back up to get the answer to Cecil and mine in earlier post and that is can
You have the INT call when the fielder is not in the act of making a play if she is not in control of the ball or about to recieve. As far as I know nfhs doesnt have the assume rule ASA does where you can call a player out for USC on a play so I still believe the runner should of been ruled safe on the play than either restrict or eject BUT I dont believe you have a basis for a INT call


JMO

Don

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I feel a runner is responsible for the path they take. A runner is not allowed to collide with an obstructing defender - someone will get hurt. I view this as illegal contact. In fact, I view this as illegal even if there was no contact - specifically, if the runner's knee hadn't hit F2 in the head.

8-6-10 Note says
Jumping, hurdling and leaping are all legal attempts to avoid a fielder only if the fileder is lying on th ground.

I really don't see any specific application of this note to the items listed in Art. 10. This is the only place in the rule book that 'jump leap hurdle' is mentioned. So, I think it applies to all play not just runner interference and the items of Art. 10.

Obstruction occurred - runner is protected.

Runner chose path through defender. Runner leaped over defender that was not prone. Runner is out for the illegal leap.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct/ejection does not seem appropriate in this case - she leaped to avoid the defender. I personally feel intentionally crashing into a defender is malicious unless it was accidental (and I enforce it that way) - runner should avoid the defense if possible. Just an out is the proper call here.

Penalty: Art. 10 through 14 (which includes the location of the Note given above) - the ball is dead and the runner is out. Each other runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.

Penalty (following Art. 10 and the Note) says if this interference ... is an obvious attempt (I can't visualize a jump leap or hurdle as an obvious attempt) to prevent a double play ... the immediate suceeding runner shall ALSO be called out. Meaning the leaper is out already.

This penalty obviously applies to Art. 10 because it mentions interference, the acts of Art. 10. Does it apply to the Note? Uuuuuuuhhhhh? Are jumping leaping hurdling acts of interference? I don't think so. I think the note is just in a poor location within the rule book - it should be a separate article with the penalty being the runner is out for jumping, leaping, or hurdling a non-prone defender. It is a safety issue - runner should be out.

Just my thoughts Glen.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Apr 10th, 2004 at 04:38 PM]

[whiskers_ump]

Okay, maybe I blew the restriction part...However, I feel
that by where in the rule book the leaping, jumping, etc.
mention is, it is interference and I have an out. [Hell,
I did anyway] Will probably never see this again, but
am trying to get a ruling form NFHS...If anything comes
back to me, will post it. Thanks to all who responded. It
seems a lot of you agree she should have been out, for various
reasons but not restricted/ejected. I cannot change that call,
but will study on it for the future.

Again Thanks,

[oppool]

Did you e-mail W. Sparks he seems to reply to question quickly on these matters. I want to state that I am not trying to make a big deal on the call I believe your outcome is probably the correct one what I have a question about is the INT call on the play what I believe is you probably have to rule the leaping attempt as Malicious contact with basically the same results except for ejection instead of a restriction on the player


JMO

Don

[WestMichBlue]

Well, I still disagree with most of you. The "hurdling" note used to follow rules of interference against a defender making a play on the runner. But it was moved two years ago to where it no longer relates to a defender making a play on a runner.

Now you may suggest that this movement is a mistake (poor editing. You can say the note is applicable anywhere (even though you normally agree that notes, exceptions, effect, and penalties only apply to the preceeding text). Or you can accept it as written, even though we don't know why the NFHS decided to do this.

By Glens game situation, this discussion is a moot point because the runner can be called out for illegal contact (8.6.13).

However - what if the runner had cleared the catcher. What if there was no contact. Then I believe, as the book is written now - that you have a legal avoidance of the defender by the runner. So if you had Obstruction called and the catcher tagged the flying runner you have to protected the runner to home.

ASA guru's - what would your call be (rule ref. please) if a runner high jumped a defender to reach the base?

WMB