Interference? FED only
 

In our HS meeting tonight the play was brought up in which a pitcher deflect a ball toward the shortstop, who in the process of fielding it is hit by the runner going from 2nd to third.

They were saying that this is interference. I have not yet received my HS rule books, but I am sure that someone in here has theirs and can tell me if this is right or wrong, and please cite the rule #.

Thank you for only citing NFHS and not not NCAA/ASA/USSSA/ any other.

In FED yes it would be interference. Rules are 8-6-10 and 2-47. The fielder making the initial play on a batted ball is protected. The initial play is still considered to be in effect on a batted ball that has been deflected by the pitcher.

Thanks. I couldn't believe that a ball touched by a fielder could still have an interference, but I am glad I didn't argue now. Silence is golden on this one.

I guess FED requires runners to predict ricochets off of the pitcher, just not other fielders ... If this is so, it defies common sense.

In NCAA and ASA, the infraction requires the runner to intentionally hinder the second fielder making the play. So it's not much different.

I tend to agree on the runner having to predict where the ricochet is going. 8-8-6 deals with the runner being hit by a deflected ball and not having the opportunity to avoid being hit. Not sure why they would have us rule differently if the ball deflected in such a way the runner could not avoid interfering on a ball deflecting off the pitcher.

NFHS made this change about three years ago (I think).

It is significantly different from ASA and NCAA in that the NFHS ruling does not require intent.

The example play would be an infielder moving at the crack (or ping) of the bat to field a ball, ball is deflected by the pitcher, fielder changes direction to adjust and collides with a runner. If the fielder could have played the ball, this would be interference in NFHS.

This is quite simply incredible. I want to use a number of other adjectives, but this is a family friendly forum.

It is hard to imagine the logic behind this rule change, but I guess it is another thing to try to remember when I am on a federation field.

Neither agreeing nor defending the apparent rule contradiction; here's the explanation I got back from a rules committee member then (thinking 2008??).

When a batted ball is deflected by a pitcher, it is (estimate, not doing the math) generally 20-30 feet from the nearest player, be it offensive or defensive. If hit sharply, and changes direction in a manner that the runner cannot change direction and avoid the new direction of the batted ball, the runner is protected from interference (8-8-6).

Conversely, if 1) the ball doesn't really change direction, then the runner was initially and STILL obligated to avoid interfering with the defensive player. If 2) the ball does change direction, and the fielder remains in position to field the batted ball, then the runner should, again, still remain obligated to avoid interfering with the defensive player. And if 3) the ball does change direction, and the defensive player has enough time to react and change direction, then the runner had the same amount of time to react, and should still be responsible to avoid interfering with the defensive player. (8-6-10)

So, still have to avoid the fielder, but not necessarily the ball.

Keep in mind there's some difference between avoiding the ball and avoiding a fielder fielding a ball. 8-8-6 deals with a ball. The rule used in the OP deals with a fielder.

I understand that, and will call it as FED has written the rule. But, it appears every other rule set has recognized it is equally as feasible for a deflected ball to be unavoidable as it would be for the possiblity of being unable to avoid interfering with a fielder on a deflected ball.