The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 81
Need NFHS Ruling with References

R3 on 3rd, one out. The first pitch to right-handed B4 is in the dirt and gets by the catcher and ends up behind the right-handed batter’s box. As R3 races home, B4, while backing out of the box to avoid the possible play at the plate, inadvertently:
a. Kicks the ball away from F2
b. Falls over F2
In both cases, R3 scores easily.
What, if any, call needs to be made?
__________________
Don't be afraid to try new things.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 01:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by varefump View Post
R3 on 3rd, one out. The first pitch to right-handed B4 is in the dirt and gets by the catcher and ends up behind the right-handed batter’s box. As R3 races home, B4, while backing out of the box to avoid the possible play at the plate, inadvertently:
a. Kicks the ball away from F2
b. Falls over F2
In both cases, R3 scores easily.
What, if any, call needs to be made?
7-4-4 says the batter is out.
8-6-16 says the runner closest to home is out for interference by anyone but a runner.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 02:15pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Just to add, while it's a somewhat different scenario, it does provide guidance on how NFHS treats this dilemma. Here's a play out of their case book:

"8.2.6 SITUATION D: B3 has a count of 3-2 with no runners on base and two outs. On the next pitch B3 swings and misses. The ball bounces off F2's shin guard and lands in front of home plate. As F2 moves out to field the ball, (a) B3 runs into her, knocking her down or (b) B3 unintentionally kicks the ball. RULING: In both (a) and (b), interference; the umpire calls "dead ball" and rules the batterrunner out."

Granted, this is the batter-runner on an uncaught third strike, not a batter on a passed ball. But it goes to the point that NFHS doesn't excuse the offensive player from unintentionally preventing the catcher from making a play, either by running into her or by kicking the ball away from her. The onus is on the offensive player to know what's happening, and to avoid affecting the play.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 81
So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair.

Thanks for the rule references.
__________________
Don't be afraid to try new things.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
8-6-16 would not apply, that is for all other offensive team members since the batter, batter-runner, and runners are all covered specifically in other sections of the rule.

8-2-6d is specific to a batter-runner and a dropped third strike. Neither of which we have in the OP

I would apply 7-4-4. It has two references to the batters actions:

- hindering the catcher by moving OR
- failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate the area on a potential play at the plate

That seems to indicate that the batter is required to get out of the way since the runner is coming home, but the batter can't hinder the catcher while she is vacating the area.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 02:50pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
8-2-6d is specific to a batter-runner and a dropped third strike. Neither of which we have in the OP

I would apply 7-4-4.
I agree that 7-4-4 is the right rule. As I said before, the only reason I mentioned case play 8.6.2D is that it contributes to the philosophy that life is unfair when it comes to loose balls around the plate area.
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 09, 2013, 09:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by varefump View Post
So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair.

Thanks for the rule references.

Then the coaches need to teach their batters...if you cant see the ball vacate to the area YOU CAN SEE.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 10, 2013, 09:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by varefump View Post
So, even if the batter is doing what she's suppose to do (vacating the area of the plate when a play is developing), she will ALWAYS be guilty of interference when the catcher fails to properly handle a pitch? Is it the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision?

Doesn't seem fair to me, but I guess life's not fair.
If offense "does what she is supposed to do" and hinders the defense making a play, then it is clearly INT.

To your point, she is NOT required to "vacate the area of the plate", she IS required not to hinder the defense making a play.

It may not be the batter's fault that the ball ended up behind her and out of her field of vision, but it is a simple case of "blind justice" for the defense who is entitled to make a play without hindrance.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need NFHS Ruling varefump Softball 6 Sun Feb 06, 2011 07:40pm
NFHS ruling observer Basketball 15 Sat Dec 20, 2008 09:57pm
NFHS Ruling question 3 zebra5150 Football 8 Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:35am
Need another NFHS Ruling zebra5150 Football 4 Fri Sep 16, 2005 09:48am
PSK Ruling *NFHS) MI Official Football 4 Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:29am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1