NFHS incidental contact?

[marvin]

NFHS 2-36

SECTION 36 OBSTRUCTION (DEFENSE)
Obstruction is the act of the defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter's attempt to make contact with a pitched ball or that impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball or is making the initial play on a batted ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional, physical or verbal.

If the fielder, in your judgment, is making the initial play on a batted ball you would have interference. If the fielder was making the initial play it does not matter what the runner could have anticipated.

One of the exceptions that allows an obstructed runner to still be out is:

6. When the batter-runner is obstructed between two bases and she flies out.

So if you had judged obstruction on the play you described the batter is still out because of the caught fly ball.

It all boils down to whether, in the judgment of the umpire, the player that the batter/runner collided with was making an initial play on the batted ball. There does not have to be intent for interference to occur.

[roadking]

Originally Posted by marvin

NFHS 2-36



If the fielder, in your judgment, is making the initial play on a batted ball you would have interference. If the fielder was making the initial play it does not matter what the runner could have anticipated.

One of the exceptions that allows an obstructed runner to still be out is:



So if you had judged obstruction on the play you described the batter is still out because of the caught fly ball.

It all boils down to whether, in the judgment of the umpire, the player that the batter/runner collided with was making an initial play on the batted ball. There does not have to be intent for interference to occur.

I was "what if in" the play if the ball had happened to drop in fair territory. My point of contention is F3 "intially" made a move to cover 1 base rather making the intial play on the ball, F3 move to catch the ball was a second thought.

[CecilOne]

I don't see how this could be OBS if the F3 is fielding the batted ball, regardless of misjudging the play to begin with.

Even though caught, maybe INT if ITUJ it prevented another play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I don't see how this could be OBS if the F3 is fielding the batted ball, regardless of misjudging the play to begin with.

Even though caught, maybe INT if ITUJ it prevented another play.

I'm still waiting to see if F3 was the protected fielder. If not, I cannot see how this isn't OBS.

Doesn't mean I'm awarding the BR the base especially since it did not affect the play.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm still waiting to see if F3 was the protected fielder. If not, I cannot see how this isn't OBS.

Doesn't mean I'm awarding the BR the base especially since it did not affect the play.

Looks like you were ahead of me - again.
This time by 3 minutes....

[Andy]

HTBT....but....

This is either obstruction or interference.

A few years back, when "about to receive" was taken out of the obstruction rule for NFHS, an interpretation was made that there were no more "train wrecks", you either had obstruction or interference.

That interpretation was softened somewhat to eliminate the play where the batter bunts in front of the plate and is leaving the box to run to first, the catcher is coming out to field the ball and the players collide. As long as both players are doing what they are supposed to be doing...this is nothing. And it is specific to this play only!

Here is a link to a short article by Emily Alexander written while she was on the NFHS rules commitee:

Edification & Education ::

Scroll down the page under Rules and Mechanics

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by Andy

HTBT....but....

This is either obstruction or interference.

A few years back, when "about to receive" was taken out of the obstruction rule for NFHS, an interpretation was made that there were no more "train wrecks", you either had obstruction or interference.

That interpretation was softened somewhat to eliminate the play where the batter bunts in front of the plate and is leaving the box to run to first, the catcher is coming out to field the ball and the players collide. As long as both players are doing what they are supposed to be doing...this is nothing. And it is specific to this play only!

Here is a link to a short article by Emily Alexander written while she was on the NFHS rules commitee:

Edification & Education ::

Scroll down the page under Rules and Mechanics

I think this has changed... and its now the opposite.... you rule interference.

[CecilOne]

OK OK OK - I missed that F1 caught the ball, not F3.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I don't see how this could be OBS if the F3 is fielding the batted ball, regardless of misjudging the play to begin with.

Even though caught, maybe INT if ITUJ it prevented another play.

Since F1 is described as catching the ball (and we weren't there) this brings up the question of was F3 truely making the initial play on the ball.

Similar to a discussion on the NFHS board whith which I'm sure you are familiar. ;-)


NFHS Forum: Interference