NFHS D3K rule clarification

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Id swear I have seen an NFHS case play, rule clarification or actual test questions that deals with a batter running on strike 2 and not strike 3. Im looking through the case book and the closest I can find is a batter attempting to advance on a D3k with 1st occupied and less than 2 outs. Anyone have a case citation, the test question or rule clarification? Need to try and find something actually published and in writing.

I don't have the specifics of the play.

Here is what I think I would do, as I read the play.

There are several factors to consider.

First, were any runners on base when this occurred? If there are, and they advance because of the runner batter going to first on D2K, we have a potential situation.

Second, was the count announced before the pitch? If there is a pretty good reason to believe the batter and the catcher knew the count was 1 strike, not two strikes, it can impact the ruling.

Now, for my rulings.

On a D2K with nobody on, when she starts running, I'm simply yelling, "that's strike 2" when she takes off. This is similar to yelling "Batter's Out" on a D3K with first base occupied and less than 2 outs.

If there is a runner on base, who advances, but the ball gets by the catcher on D2K, and I fell there is no chance to put out the runner, I'm again yelling that's strike 2, and the advancement is legal.

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

This would be a situation that, if I had partners I would be getting with them, and a call would be made as a crew based on what each umpire witnessed on the play.

I simply can't say that there is one correct answer on this play, because each situation would be different.

[RKBUmp]

In any rules clinic I have ever attended both asa and nfhs we have always been taught the onus is on the defense and make the appropriate play for the situation. The case play for nfhs bretman has posted deals with a batter advancing on ball 3 but is very similar in result with a runner advancing. That case play says the defense should be aware of the count and the appropriate play. Exactly what has been taught in rules clinics. I need to find something that has actually been published through nfhs with regard to a batter running on strike 2. It involves a protest.

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule cite please.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...Second, was the count announced before the pitch? If there is a pretty good reason to believe the batter and the catcher knew the count was 1 strike, not two strikes, it can impact the ruling.

Irrelevant.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.