2013 NFHS Interpretations

[bbsbvb83]

Originally Posted by Manny A

First off, the listed rule only refers to umpire decisions that may put a team in jeopardy.

Agreed. This is an extremely liberal interpretation and application of 10-2-3m.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

What about the "chalk" lines? Can the pitcher now "rub" her hand into the "chalk" that same way she can the "big brown rosin bag"?

"Now"???

Of course she can.

Kind of wondering why anyone would want it to be any different.

This message brought to you by the Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Quotation Marks.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by this interp. First off, the listed rule only refers to umpire decisions that may put a team in jeopardy. There was no decision made here.

But by using 10-2-3m as a rule reference, it opens the door to coaches wanting other forms of umpire "hindrances" covered by the same rule. A base umpire trips a runner, and the offensive coach could argue that 10-2-3m should be used, just like it's used in this interp scenario.

I agree 100%. The ruling is consistent with other teachings... but I'd prefer they codify the idea that if there is NO play, and something that might otherwise have been interference happens - and that CREATES a play, we should kill it. Pulling out rule 10-2-3 is bad precedent.

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

"Now"???

Of course she can.

Kind of wondering why anyone would want it to be any different.

This message brought to you by the Society for the Prevention of Unnecessary Quotation Marks.

"My" "association" "was" 'Split" "on" "this" "issue" .... some still arguing that no player could ever touch the ball with impure hands.....

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

"My" "association" "was" 'Split" "on" "this" "issue" .... some still arguing that no player could ever touch the ball with impure hands.....

We have had this discussion on this board before. While the NCAA codifies a requirement for the pitcher to wipe after touching literally anything before handling the ball (yep, wipe that now dry hand on the wet uniform because you touched the rosin bag to dry your hand), neither NFHS nor ASA have ever had a rule in place, nor an approved ruling, nor a case play ruling that required wiping after anything but after going to the mouth.

Apply no foreign substance (directly) to the ball doesn't mean wipe your hand if you touch the field. If the ball has a substance foreign to the field, and you saw the pitcher (or any other defensive player) put it on, you have a violation. If the ball has dirt or chalk on it, they are substances part of the field, not a foreign substance. If the pitcher applies something directly to the ball, that is defacing the ball, and that violation applies.

These approved rulings finally state more specifically what has been said before, although the nonbelievers continue to want it how they did it before. The fact that NFHS had to make these approved rulings without changing anything in the rule only points out that so many people ignored the correct application before.

It is clear what the NCAA rule is; it should be equally clear that the NFHS and ASA rules are NOT the same, and should not have ever been treated the same.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Frankly, I'm a little surprised by this interp. First off, the listed rule only refers to umpire decisions that may put a team in jeopardy. There was no decision made here.

I fully realize that they're trying to expand the umpire interference rule (8-5-6) when it comes to throws by the catcher. The rule itself limits throws from the catcher to make plays on runners, and they want to include throws from the catcher back to the pitcher.

But by using 10-2-3m as a rule reference, it opens the door to coaches wanting other forms of umpire "hindrances" covered by the same rule. A base umpire trips a runner, and the offensive coach could argue that 10-2-3m should be used, just like it's used in this interp scenario.

I'm looking at 5-1-2-c to DDB Chart, #6 which directs you to 8-5-6. The ruling seems to be correct, the reference is wrong.