inteference by batter or not?

[Roger Greene]

But see the Fed play cited in the threadstarter above.

They clearly state that the retired BR is in the running lane when she is hit by the thrown ball. No intentional act on the part of the retired BR is indicated (other than running to 1st in the running lane). Then the play states the if the umpire judges that the throw was a play on any runner (not the BR) the inteference could be called.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

[SamNVa]

In my opinion, the operative word in the ruling is "COULD". I would still have to judge intent to interfere on the batter's part in order to make the interference call. I would base my judgement on whether the BR continued to run after my emphatic call of OUT. If she continued to run after that, then I could justify a call of interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SamNVa
From Note 1 under Rule 8.4.2h which I interpret as applying to sections 8.4.2(d,e,f, & g) as well, a retired runner is basically treated the same as a live runner, i.e. hindering a fielder is interference whether it is intentional or not, interference with a thrown ball, must be intentional.

In accordance with FED's stand on walks and the 3-foot lane, I believe that if the retired BR is running outside the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first, by getting plunked, etc., then the umpire would be justified in ruling the interference intentional and calling the runner nearest to home out.

If the throw were going to another base like 2nd (as was described in the original thread I believe) then the BR would have to do something more than just being in the way for interference to be called.

Again all of this is for FED, not ASA.

--Sam

Sam,

The only problem I have with this is that the rule you are citing is applicable to "runners", not batter-runner. If this "note" was under 8.4.1, I would agree with you, but it is not. According to 2.2.2 and 2.14.2, a batter who is out on strikes never attains BR or runner status by definition, so I do not believe you can make that presumption without further direction from NFHS.

JMHO,

[SamNVa]

I disagree Mike. Rule 8.1.1b clearly states that the batter becomes a runner when charged with a third strike. The note following the rule states that the runner is immediately out if the third strike is caught, and by extension, if 1st base is occupied with less than 2 outs.

The only reason I can see for putting this statement in the rule book is to give this player the status of a retired runner for the other applicable rules.

--Sam

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SamNVa
I disagree Mike. Rule 8.1.1b clearly states that the batter becomes a runner when charged with a third strike. The note following the rule states that the runner is immediately out if the third strike is caught, and by extension, if 1st base is occupied with less than 2 outs.

The only reason I can see for putting this statement in the rule book is to give this player the status of a retired runner for the other applicable rules.

--Sam

You are right and that is what it says, but based on the logic you just presented, look at the NOTE to 8.1.a: "Batter becomes a runner when entitled to run." Yes, this is under "hitting a fair ball." Now, can you tell me when the batter is not entitled to run when they hit a fair ball? I cannot think of one situation where this is true and before someone says, "How about a hard line drive back to the pitcher?", that doesn't mean the batter is not entitled to run. Therefore, they must have put that note in there to create a time line for the following rules.

Meanwhile, on a third strike with less than two outs and 1B occupied, the batter is not entitled to do anything, but go to the dugout area.

We are dealing with NFHS, and their wording often seems to contradict itself. They do make it hard to lock down some things, don't they?

d:-)

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

We are dealing with NFHS, and their wording often seems to contradict itself. They do make it hard to lock down some things, don't they?

d:-)

I definitely agree on that point, Mike. However as my final comment, I would like to point out that the batter is entitled to run on a third strike until such time as the catcher has the ball securely in her glove. Now normally this is a matter of microseconds after the 3rd strike occurs, but consider the following situation:

On a called thrid strike, the pitch glances off the catchers glove, hits her mask and goes 10,20,30 feet into the air. The batter seeing this occur takes off for 1st. A second later, the ball comes down and the catcher catches it and holds it securely. At that point, the batter would be out, but until that happens, isn't she entitled to run? So in reality we're just talking about a difference in the amount of time a batter is entitled to run, but wouldn't you agree that the batter is entitled to run for that length of time, however short it may be?

--Sam

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SamNVa

I definitely agree on that point, Mike. However as my final comment, I would like to point out that the batter is entitled to run on a third strike until such time as the catcher has the ball securely in her glove. Now normally this is a matter of microseconds after the 3rd strike occurs, but consider the following situation:

On a called thrid strike, the pitch glances off the catchers glove, hits her mask and goes 10,20,30 feet into the air. The batter seeing this occur takes off for 1st. A second later, the ball comes down and the catcher catches it and holds it securely. At that point, the batter would be out, but until that happens, isn't she entitled to run? So in reality we're just talking about a difference in the amount of time a batter is entitled to run, but wouldn't you agree that the batter is entitled to run for that length of time, however short it may be?

--Sam

Come on, Sam, we're only on page two of this incarnation of the thread.

No, I do not agree that is true when there is a runner on 1st and less than two outs. I don't care if the ball goes 50 feet in the air and all runners advance two bases by the time it comes down, I do not believe the batter was entitled, even for a microsecond (which, by the way, could be my son's name).

Just, as many people claim, a catcher should know the situation and not be dumb enough to throw to 1B in this scenario, why shouldn't we expect the batter to be aware of what is available to her at the time of the pitch especially with two strikes.

Just my thoughts,