overthrow

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Would you rule INT if F1 were backing up the play, and the ODB gets hit, preventing F1 from fielding the throw and possibly making a play on R2?

My point is that the NFHS wording does not say intentional or any exception for directing traffic.
Permission to leave the ODC is not the same as permission to impede.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Can you reference the NFHS wording you're referring to?

Thanx.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tru_in_blu

can you reference the nfhs wording you're referring to?
Thanx.

8-6-16

[Tru_in_Blu]

Thanx. I'd have a hard time ruling INT when the ball simply hits the ODB. I'd view it as similar to an overthrow hitting a coach in the coach's box. If coach (or ODB) did nothing after getting hit with the ball, I think I'd have nothing.

They didn't even include Art. 16 in the casebook in 2014 or 2012.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

My point is that the NFHS wording does not say intentional or any exception for directing traffic.
Permission to leave the ODC is not the same as permission to impede.

I think you really need to go back to the basic definition of interference, specifically to the reference of the word "act". The ODB is allowed to leave the circle to direct runners, and if she just happens to get hit with a thrown ball that gets by the catcher, there is no "act" that she did to cause any interference. No different than when a base coach is out of the coach's box while directing runners, and he/she gets hit with a throw.