NFHS D3K rule clarification

[IRISHMAFIA]

I can solve this issue. Drop the rule. It wasn't always part of the game, so maybe everyone would be better off without it.

[RKBUmp]

If that was the rule I would be fine with it. The problem is one particular person that keeps getting assigned to our games even after detailing a full page worth of rules he has miss applied or invented in his own mind. Not to mention showing up 15 minutes late for one and 30 minutes late for another.

[nopachunts]

Who is assigning the umpire?

[RKBUmp]

It is a charter school athletic association. I dont think they really care, they are just putting bodies on the field and collecting their fees from the schools.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Where is the interference?

The simple fact is, there is none. The batter did not prevent the defense from making any plays on anyone. This is nothing more than a DMC because she threw the ball when she should have known she didn't have to.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. When a batter/retired batter runs to first base when she shouldn't, the only way you have interference if the catcher throws to first is if she's making a pickoff play on the runner at first base diving back, and the ball hits the batter/retired batter.

What is the definition of interference?

The key part for this discussion can be "who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder"

If a batter runner takes off running to first base is she not illegally doing something because she is not entitled to do it? She is not entitled to run to first base on a D2K, so by doing something she is not entitled to do is she illegally doing that act?


One other thing to consider. What about the coach who, when the 2nd strike is dropped yells to the batter to run. Is this not a verbal act to confuse the fielder?

Just something to think about.

[RKBUmp]

The defense is responsible for knowing the count and where the appropriate play is at. Numerous threads covering the subject, it is not interference.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The key part for this discussion can be "who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder"

Fixed it for you. ILLEGALLY. That word matters.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Fixed it for you. ILLEGALLY. That word matters.

Is the batter-runner legally allowed to advance to first base on a dropped second strike? If she is not doing a legal act would that make the act illegal?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

What is the definition of interference?

The key part for this discussion can be "who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder"

If a batter runner takes off running to first base is she not illegally doing something because she is not entitled to do it? She is not entitled to run to first base on a D2K, so by doing something she is not entitled to do is she illegally doing that act?


One other thing to consider. What about the coach who, when the 2nd strike is dropped yells to the batter to run. Is this not a verbal act to confuse the fielder?

Just something to think about.

No, someone being confused does not constitute interference. Over the years I've seen and heard too many people use that to try to talk someone into the interference ruling.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, someone being confused does not constitute interference. Over the years I've seen and heard too many people use that to try to talk someone into the interference ruling.

The problem with your argument is that in the definition of interference is does specifically use the word confuse (actually confuses).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Is the batter-runner legally allowed to advance to first base on a dropped second strike? If she is not doing a legal act would that make the act illegal?

Rule cite, please, where a batter running toward 1B is illegal.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem with your argument is that in the definition of interference is does specifically use the word confuse (actually confuses).

You're taking the general definition of interference out of context. You have to understand how the word "confuses" applies under certain scenarios to deem if interference actually takes place. There are many ways an offense player can confuse a defensive player and it not be anything close to interference.

Suppose a runner at second bluffs a steal of third, the catcher throws to third to make a play on her, and she sails the ball down the left field line, allowing the runner to come all the way home. Are you going to rule interference on the runner because she confused the catcher into throwing the ball when she didn't have to?

How about when a batter shows bunt, causing the first and third basemen to move in, and then the batter swings away for a hit over one of their heads. Yup, the batter confused the fielders into a position where they couldn't make the play on the ball. Is that cause for an interference call?

Had this one in my last game as I was BU: Runner at first with a Three-Ball count on the batter. She "steals" on Ball Four, and the catcher throws to second base. The sliding runner is hit by the throw, and the ball bounces away, allowing her and the BR to advance another base. She confused the catcher into making an unnecessary throw due to the walk, so in your mind that should be ruled interference, right?

And here's one more that I actually saw as a LL Baseball umpire involving my son: Runners on first and third, and the batter receives Ball Four. The BR jogs to first, R2 saunters to second, and R1 (my son) casually trots home. He scores as the catcher walks toward the pitcher to give him the ball back. EVERYBODY was confused with that one since nobody on defense yelled, "Tag him!" If this happened in a FED softball game, an interference call on this one would cause a riot.

Don't read just the minimum amount to argue a point. Know the full context on what the rulemakers intended with their words.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Is the batter-runner legally allowed to advance to first base on a dropped second strike? If she is not doing a legal act would that make the act illegal?

I invite you to find any rule that says this act is illegal. It is not.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem with your argument is that in the definition of interference is does specifically use the word confuse (actually confuses).

But "confuses" in that context is for the non-contact things like waving arms, jumping up and down; not physically impeding the fielder or ball, but confusing in the sense of distracting or disconcerting.

Agreed, not the faking/deceiving examples above by Manny.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I invite you to find any rule that says this act is illegal. It is not.

The problem is there is nothing that says it is a legal act either. Nowhere in the rules does it say running to 1st base on a dropped second strike is a legal act. You are correct it does not specify it is illegal, but at the same time it does not specify the act as an allowable action of the batter either. That is my point which some of you are to thick headed to understand.