![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
Two: - She hits the catcher with her follow-through swing I haven't had time to break out my rule book yet this year (it's on the nightstand for hopefully tonight), but I thought there was a rule that if no play is being made, this is just a dead ball? Is that only for hitting the ball out of the glove, or am I confusing it with something else? Three: she backs out of the box and falls over the catcher who is trying to pick up the loose ball as a runner from third tries to score This has to be interference, she actively did something which prevented fielding the ball. There's a slight modification though that I'm not sure I understand well. That is the case where no play is happening and then seeing the tangle the runner from third comes home. Your training would be better with a play like that. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
"7.4.4 SITUATION D: With R1 on third and R2 on first base, B3 swings and does not make contact with the ball. On her follow-through, the bat comes around and inadvertently knocks the ball out of the catcher's glove. The ball rolls up the line; R1 scores and R2 advances to second base. RULING: Batter interference is called since the ball was in the catcher’s glove; the act does not have to be intentional. B3 is out, the ball is dead and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the interference." So the case play says nothing about the runners advancing at the time of the pitch (e.g., R2 is stealing second). I get the impression that no play was going on when the batter knocked the ball out of the catcher's glove. I would have called Dead Ball, no Interference, and the runners return to their bases. But that's not what NFHS wants called here. And since the case play specifically points out that the ball was in the catcher's glove, perhaps they feel differently if the ball was loose and the bat hits it on the follow-through. I guess in that situation, the batter cannot be faulted for contacting a pitch that the catcher failed to secure, and that would be cause to just ruling Dead Ball, runners return.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
|
Okay, this silence is killing me. Let me approach this a different way:
Scenario: Runner at third base. Pitch is in the dirt, and the ball goes behind the batter's box. The batter has no idea that the ball is there, and as she backs out of the way when she sees her teammate running home to score, she: a. Kicks the ball further away b. Tangles with the catcher as the catcher tries to pick up the ball In both situations, the runner from third scores easily. Is the batter guilty of interfering with the catcher, and is ruled out with the runner returning to third? FED only please.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
|
Quote:
So, no written exception applies, and it is clear the defense lost an opportunity because of an action by the offense. What is the question?
__________________
Steve ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NFHS batter interference? | shipwreck | Softball | 7 | Mon Oct 01, 2012 09:52am |
| NFHS Batter interference | rbmartin | Baseball | 12 | Tue Mar 20, 2012 08:06am |
| Umpire Interference / Batter Interference | bob jenkins | Baseball | 17 | Mon Feb 06, 2012 09:57pm |
| Batter interference.....7-3-5a not 7-3-5c | spots101 | Baseball | 4 | Sun Sep 22, 2002 05:21pm |
| Batter Interference | ump24 | Baseball | 6 | Wed Mar 14, 2001 11:46pm |