Rulings For NFHS
 

1st debate.

High School ball. NFHS

Got into a nice little debate this evening with a fellow softball UMPIRE. Here's the question. A ball is hit and recochets off the pitchers glove toward short stop. The short stop comes up to make a play on the ball and is hit by the runner moving from 2nd to 3rd.

Is this interference.

I say yes, clear cut. He says it is OBS cause SS does not have the ball. He also said the 1 step and reach comes into play...HUH?

2nd debate.

Again NHFS

R1 on 1B, 1 out. 3-2 count on batter, shes swings at next pitch misses, F2 catches the ball on the bounce, BR takes off to 1B, running in runners lande all the way, F2 throws to 1B hitting BR in back. What have you got?

I don't believe NFHS covers deflected batted balls in the rule book like ASA does, but I believe the definition of Initial Play covers it.

Well, running in the 3' lane "all the way" to 1B isn't possible. :rolleyes: However, even part of the way is irrelevant since she is not a BR.

If there was a play on R1, then it is INT. If there is no play, I'm thinking DMC.

NFHS does not consider an attempt at a play on a ball by the pitcher to be an initial play. If it was deflected toward the SS and she was attempting to field the ball, it is interference on the runner.

A deflection off any fielder to another is an initial play as long as the ball stays in flight.

Missed you so far this season. Have you been posting or out of touch or ... ? :(

1st debate scenario only, NFHS Rules:

I had this exact play in my game on Saturday myself. I called OBS because the collision between R1 and F6 happened as F1 went for the ball. Then F1 muffed it, deflected to F6, who was in the process of moving to field it when R1 hit her. I was wrong.

The Initial Play definition (2.47.3) covers a deflected batted ball off the pitcher only. (also see case play 2.47.3 situation B). In my play, and in whiskers_ump's play, interference has happened per 8.6.10.a.

I missed an out. Dangit!

This is interesting and brings a question to my mind...what would you have had it F1 had fielded the ball cleanly? Was the collision between F6 and R1 significantly before the muff or was it bang-bang as the ball was being misplayed? Since OBS is a delayed dead ball anyway, might it have been proper to signal the DDB for OBS at first, then change to an interference call as this play develops? That should make for an interesting conversation with a coach.....

If F1 fielded the ball cleanly and R1 and F6 collided????
How could it be anything but obstruction??

NFHS Part II #66

The pitcher may throw to a base while a foot is in contact with the pitcher's plate after having taken the pitching position.

It was kind of a rhetorical question designed to help illustrate the issue I was trying to present....

If F1 got it and made the play, then you no longer have a deflected batted ball. OBS is the only call you have at that point.

false

I disagree. She can throw it to a base if she wants. How are you going to stop her? :confused:

OK, I like poking fun at logical fallacies in the wording of T/F questions as much as (actually, probably more than) the next guy, but the question says "may" not "can"! :D

Ahhh ... it's test grammar you are hitting. Well, in that case, you can hardly miss! :cool:

But she may throw it over there, too. I cannot stop her, neither can you.

Well, actually it is the stupidity of some of the questions. ASA can offer some confusing questions, but they have nothing on the Fed.

I think it has reached the point of actually making it more difficult for the umpire to learn the rules.

JMO

can: be physically or mentally able to {he can lift 200 pounds}
may: have permission to {you may go now}
(Webster)

At least that there be the way I learnt it! ;)

So, she CAN, but that doesn't mean she MAY.

Pitchers MAY not crow hop, either, but they do, don't they? :rolleyes:

True, but the question was "may" the pitcher..., not "can" the pitcher.... So, it doesn't matter whether the can or can't, does or doesn't ... either way, she mayn't. ;)

I don't know about making it more difficult but it does make many sections of the test worthless for learning the rules. Just spend time trying to figure out whether they wanted me to out think them or not...

I'd like to see on the test a few questions like this that reflect actual things to think about commonly on the field.
T/F
The ball is fair when:
It hits behind third base then bounces foul (picture might be even better)
It hits the foul pole
It hits a rock in fair territory then bounces to the fence

Then it'd be reasonable to expect a competent umpire to breeze through it. You could even ask some tougher ones.

It hits the discarded bat in foul territory then comes to rest in fair territory.
or
It hits the discarded bat in fair territory then comes to rest in foul territory.

If the questions were like that, it'd be a great study guide and great opportunities to practice.

Or mark false for each illegal substitution ...
________
Bong Pictures

It hits a player's dropped sunglasses in fair territory then comes to rest in foul territory. ;)

more info

can 1 (kn; kn when unstressed)
aux.v. Past tense could (kd)
1.
a. Used to indicate physical or mental ability: I can carry both suitcases. Can you remember the war?
b. Used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege: The President can veto congressional bills.
c. Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill: I can tune the harpsichord as well as play it.
2.
a. Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen.
b. Used to indicate that which is permitted, as by conscience or feelings: One can hardly blame you for being upset.
c. Used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances: They can hardly have intended to do that.
3. Usage Problem Used to request or grant permission: Can I be excused?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, first and third person sing. present tense of connen, to know how, from Old English cunnan; see gn- in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Generations of grammarians and teachers have insisted that can should be used only to express the capacity to do something, and that may must be used to express permission. But children do not use can to ask permission out of a desire to be stubbornly perverse. They have learned it as an idiomatic expression from adults: After you clean your room, you can go outside and play. As part of the spoken language, this use of can is perfectly acceptable. This is especially true for negative questions, such as Can't I have the car tonight? probably because using mayn't instead of can't sounds unnatural. Nevertheless, in more formal usage the distinction between can and may still has many adherents. Only 21 percent of the Usage Panel accepts can instead of may in the sentence Can I take another week to submit the application? The heightened formality of may sometimes highlights the speaker's role in giving permission. You may leave the room when you are finished implies that permission is given by the speaker. You can leave the room when you are finished implies that permission is part of a rule or policy rather than a decision on the speaker's part. For this reason, may sees considerable use in official announcements: Students may pick up the application forms tomorrow.

and from webster's on line:

Main Entry: 1can
Pronunciation: \kən, ˈkan also ˈken; dial ˈkin\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past could \kəd, ˈku̇d\; present singular & plural can
Etymology: Middle English (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from Old English; akin to Old High German kan (1st & 3d singular present indicative) know, am able, Old English cnāwan to know — more at know
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 obsolete : know, understand
2 archaic : to be able to do, make, or accomplish
intransitive verb
archaic : to have knowledge or skill
verbal auxiliary
1 a : know how to <she can read> b : be physically or mentally able to <he can lift 200 pounds> c —used to indicate possibility <do you think he can still be alive> <those things can happen> ; sometimes used interchangeably with may d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to <can hardly blame her> e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to <he can hardly have meant that> f : be inherently able or designed to <everything that money can buy> g : be logically or axiologically able to <2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1> h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
2 : have permission to —used interchangeably with may <you can go now if you like>

usage Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission. The use of can to ask or grant permission has been common since the 19th century and is well established, although some commentators feel may is more appropriate in formal contexts. May is relatively rare in negative constructions (mayn't is not common); cannot and can't are usual in such contexts.

Irrelevant, since the question used "may".

Dakota,

Agreed on the test part but somebody cited webster and did not show the use of can as indicating permission. As Webster stated, can denoting permission has been accepted since the 19th century.

Ron

That was me, and reason I didn't cite the reference that "can" is commonly used to indicate "permission" was it was irrelevant to the question.

I remember when we started doing that (accepting "can" as denoting permission).

It was just giving in to the common mis-use of the word.
Oh those were the days.....:D

:eek:

No wonder these hijacked threads often migrate to discussions on beer...

I need some now.

:oBurrrrrrrrrrrrp

:o

You will often find that the beer hijacks are much more fun, as well as enlightening.