Once in a lifetime situation

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, the player is still a batter.

True enough. I sit corrected.

I guess the importance of my concern centers around the situation where this may happen with runners on base. It was strike three. If the batter then strikes the ball while runners are advancing, I think we have interfenece. In ASA, we have a rule that tells us the ball is dead; but in NFHS, IF the ball isn't dead on the follow through contact, AND we rule interference, how many outs do we have? The batter should be out because of strike three, but can we also rule interference on a retired runner (although she was never a runner) (8-18), thus calling out the runner closest to home as well?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

True enough. I sit corrected.

I guess the importance of my concern centers around the situation where this may happen with runners on base. It was strike three. If the batter then strikes the ball while runners are advancing, I think we have interfenece. In ASA, we have a rule that tells us the ball is dead; but in NFHS, IF the ball isn't dead on the follow through contact, AND we rule interference, how many outs do we have? The batter should be out because of strike three, but can we also rule interference on a retired runner (although she was never a runner) (8-18), thus calling out the runner closest to home as well?

What do you do in HS if a runner is going and the batter swings at a ball that hits her? I see this as a similar circumstance. In both cases, the catcher has a possible play if she gets the ball. In both cases, the batter does something which keeps the ball from reaching the catcher. In both cases, the ball is dead.

I believe the prudent call would be to just return the runner(s).

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I believe the prudent call would be to just return the runner(s).

Mike,

I agree, and believe that it would be a very easy sell on the field. It would be nice to close that gap in the rules, if it truly exists. I've been digging on and off all day and can't find anything to support that ruling - although I believe it is correct.

Thanks for your insight.