need a little help I have confused myself
 

Here is the situation: r1 on first batter hits pop up in vicinity of bag. Runner is standing on bag and never moves. Fielder coming over to make play runs into runner and both fall to ground. The ball lands about a foot in front of bag and rolls into foul territory without being touched. What would we have. This was in a high school game. I called foul ball and left it at that, after the game the defensive coach said he would have liked to have had the interference. Help me figure this out PLease. I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do and did nothing to create any interference but I also think the fielder has the right of way to make the play. Thanks guys for the information in advance.

The runner is not required to vacate the base for the defense to make a play. The runner, however, may not commit an act of INT while in contact with the base. IOW, if she just stands there, it is nothing.

I do not see an exception for on the base in NFHS rules. Please cite.

8-8-13 Runner is not out when hit by a fair batted ball while touching a base, unless the runner intentionally interferes with the ball or the fielder making a play.

That's not the same as interfering with a fly ball. There is no reference to the batter being hit by the ball. If that were the case and the runner was on the base, the ball would have been fair...

Did you actually read the last 6 words of the rule? "or the fielder making a play" The rule cited covers 2 seperate incidences of possible interference by the runner, getting hit by a fair batted ball while standing on a base, or interfering with a player making a play. In both instances the runners act would have to be intentional in order to be guilty of interference.

...sigh...

Thank you.

Thanks guys you helped me out. Mbcrowder, I am not sure what the sigh is about, but...

All I wanted was to double check myself after the coach got me to overthinking a little. Sometimes all we need is someone else to discuss it in front of you to help clear the webs.

Thanks again guys I read these posts alot but rarely post

OOH! OOH! I Know! I Know!
 

The sigh was for the comment "she was doing what she was supposed to do". I figured he would say something about it. He doesn't like that phrase.

Nothing personal... I went on a bit of a tirade the other day about the phrase you used - "she was just doing what she was supposed to be doing." The sigh was from seeing it again. :)

See I told ya!
 

Do I know my mbcrowder or what?

I am not sure the the rule cited covers the situation since it states that the runner was hit by a batted ball, which did not occur in the situation in the OP.

I did not find anything in the rule book that directly addresses the situation in the OP, but I do think that the call was correct.

Every situation that might be considered interference that is mentioned in the books (rule book and case book) has no violation IF the runner was on a base and there was no intentional act of interference. The call made was consistent with the rules even if they do not mention this specific case.

:) !!!

no problem. I just couldnt see what it was for but i can understand. I have some of those pet peaves myself. I really do appreciate being able to come to this site and get things from different perspectives. It has helped me become a better umpire. thanks guys