need a little help I have confused myself

tidefanintenn · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:28pm

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.

IRISHMAFIA · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tidefanintenn

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.

CecilOne · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

RKBUmp · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

EsqUmp · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 07:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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...

RKBUmp · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 11, 2012, 10:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

MD Longhorn · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 08:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tidefanintenn

...I feel like the runner was doing what she was supposed to do ...

...sigh...

CecilOne · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 08:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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.

Thank you.

tidefanintenn · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 01:43pm

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

rwest · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tidefanintenn

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

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.

MD Longhorn · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tidefanintenn

Mbcrowder, I am not sure what the sigh is about, but...

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.

rwest · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Do I know my mbcrowder or what?

marvin · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:08pm

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.

MD Longhorn · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

!!!

tidefanintenn · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 12, 2012, 06:43pm

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Confused	kwatson	Basketball	15	Sat Nov 19, 2011 05:23pm
I'm confused	refnrev	Volleyball	7	Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:38am
confused sub	just another ref	Basketball	6	Sun Jan 14, 2007 02:00pm
Confused	truerookie	Basketball	2	Thu Nov 24, 2005 02:44am
Confused	Dudly	Basketball	20	Thu Dec 09, 2004 07:47pm