2013 NFHS Interpretations

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

SITUATION 4: With R1 on third base, F2 attempts to return the ball to F1 but her arm strikes the umpire in the mask and the throw goes into the dugout or into center field allowing R1 to score. RULING: The umpire should call “time” and return R1 to third base. In this situation there was no apparent play; F2 was simply returning the ball back to F1. The umpire should have both the offense and the defense reset and continue play. (10-2-3m)

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.

[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 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.

[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.