NF Rule 8-2-5: Interference or not?

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I acknowledge it is NFHS's interpretation, but help me with the definition part. I don't have the 2007 book yet, but the 2006 book does not address this in the definitions rule. Is it somewhere else?

Good point, Tom. I took my info from the 2007 book; I should have looked in older books. I can tell you that the NFHS committee has been adamant that they want this interpretation; that a walked batter is subject to interference. It looks like they added new text this year to justify that position. (I don’t know this is true, but if not, it is one heck of a coincidence.)

It is interesting that for years we have talked about “making a play” or attempting to “execute a play,” but until this year no one ever defined a play.

In 2007 the NFHS defined a play as an attempt to retire a batter runner or runner. ASA added the same text to their 2007 book. However, the NFHS also added another definition, which states: “any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.”

SO – in 2007 NFHS has a definition of play that matches the previously held interpretation of subjecting a walked batter to 3’ lane interference call.

See – it is logical!

WMB

For those calling HS ball, don’t forget that NFHS also added Initial Play this year in the same definition. This codifies the commonly held interpretation of “step and a reach” protection for a fielder that bobbled a batted ball, and made a half hearted attempt to not protect a defender attempting to field some types of balls deflected by other fielders.

[Dakota]

Thanks.

It is logical, if by that you mean the book is self-consistent. However, I don't like either ASA's or NFHS's attempts to define a play. I think ASA's is too restrictive. Defensive plays often have objectives other than an attempt to retire a runner. OTOH, there are also plenty of examples of the defense throwing the ball around when there is no play happening. I liked it better when it was undefined - you knew it when you saw it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Thanks.

It is logical, if by that you mean the book is self-consistent. However, I don't like either ASA's or NFHS's attempts to define a play. I think ASA's is too restrictive. Defensive plays often have objectives other than an attempt to retire a runner. OTOH, there are also plenty of examples of the defense throwing the ball around when there is no play happening. I liked it better when it was undefined - you knew it when you saw it.

Remember, the definition is for the purpose of the applying the rules, not to be an all-inclusive description of every event which occurs on the field. A runner sliding into 2B on a double is considered a "play" by many, but is irrelevant to how the rules which use the term "play" are applied.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remember, the definition is for the purpose of the applying the rules, not to be an all-inclusive description of every event which occurs on the field. A runner sliding into 2B on a double is considered a "play" by many, but is irrelevant to how the rules which use the term "play" are applied.

Yes, I know. But let's take interference with a thrown ball as an example. Runner has just been retired on a force play at 2B. R1 holds at 3B. F6 is throwing the ball back to F1 in the circle. Retired runner takes an action to "interfere" (Webster definition) with the throw. R1 takes advantage and scores. It was a thrown ball, not attempting to retire a runner. Was this interference (ASA definition)? I'd say yes, but by rule, there was no play, hence no interference?

[scottk_61]

I agree with WMB on this as I have heard it repeatedly referenced in my correspondence with the Fed heavyweight types.
However, I am glad that ASA has not taken this route

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Good point, Tom. I took my info from the 2007 book; I should have looked in older books. I can tell you that the NFHS committee has been adamant that they want this interpretation; that a walked batter is subject to interference. It looks like they added new text this year to justify that position. (I don’t know this is true, but if not, it is one heck of a coincidence.)

It is interesting that for years we have talked about “making a play” or attempting to “execute a play,” but until this year no one ever defined a play.

In 2007 the NFHS defined a play as an attempt to retire a batter runner or runner. ASA added the same text to their 2007 book. However, the NFHS also added another definition, which states: “any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.”

SO – in 2007 NFHS has a definition of play that matches the previously held interpretation of subjecting a walked batter to 3’ lane interference call.

See – it is logical!

WMB

For those calling HS ball, don’t forget that NFHS also added Initial Play this year in the same definition. This codifies the commonly held interpretation of “step and a reach” protection for a fielder that bobbled a batted ball, and made a half hearted attempt to not protect a defender attempting to field some types of balls deflected by other fielders.

[CecilOne]

There is a significant difference between "takes an action to "interfere"" and "acts in a manner which interferes"; unless by "to" you did not mean intent to interfere.

[Dakota]

Don't wordsmith... pick your phrase... was it interference under the rules or not? The issue is was there a play, not was there intent.

[varefump]

So if I understand this correctly, under NFHS rules, all the catcher has to do in this situation is to observe the BR heading to 1B and if she is out of the 3-foot running lane, then just whack her in the back with the ball and get an easy out for interference.

That doesn't seem fair to me. What am I missing here?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by varefump

So if I understand this correctly, under NFHS rules, all the catcher has to do in this situation is to observe the BR heading to 1B and if she is out of the 3-foot running lane, then just whack her in the back with the ball and get an easy out for interference.

That doesn't seem fair to me. What am I missing here?

If you've got a particularly OOO or unobservant umpire, yeah - that would probably work. Of course... what happens when the runner course corrects and the ball misses the runner ... with the ball rolling into right field. Seems a bad course to coach.

That said, if an umpire felt it was obvious the throw was made intentionally to hit the batter-runner, then said umpire may well rule that the throw was not a quality throw (which is required for interference on this play). And if the ball was not on line to F3, an umpire could/should not rule interference even if intent was not discerned by them.

So I guess what you're missing is that the throw still has to be a quality throw, and there's a good chance to give up an extra base if not executed perfectly

[varefump]

2007 Case Book - page 48 - Situation 8.2.5.B