NFHS D3K rule clarification

[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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

I don't think it says taking practice swings, spitting or chewing gum is illegal either.

The point being that generally, if it doesn't say (or define) that it is illegal, it isn't and would then be legal.
right?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Whoa, what's with the insult?

Your problem is that you want everything to be black or white. The truth is, there's plenty of gray in the rules. And that's where umpires earn their stripes, dealing with that gray such that neither team is disadvantaged.

Just yesterday, I worked bases in a HS conference first-round playoff game. The weather was not favorable; we had a good drenching an hour before game time, and it rained off and on after we started. The home team pitcher had a pretty long towel hanging out of her back pocket to dry her hand between pitches.

When she came to bat, my partner directed her to remove the towel and put it in the dugout. Why? Probably because he didn't want a situation where a pitch hits the towel.

Was it illegal for her to have that towel in her pocket? Nope; there's no rule that says that. So does that make it legal? Not necessarily; if it was legal, then my partner couldn't make her take it out. He did something to nip a potential problem in the bud. Nobody complained.

The same is true here. There's no black and white rulings when a batter takes off for first when she doesn't become a batter-runner. You yourself said you would announce "That's Strike Two!" to try and nip that in the bud. That's what I would do. And if the catcher still makes a throw, then that's on her for not paying attention.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Insults are not necessary.

So, you assume that everything must be explicitly declared legal, else it is illegal?

Nonsense.

And, you would have this batter declared out? You DO need a rule for that! What is your rule?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

some of you are to thick headed to understand.

Totally unacceptable.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

That is my point which some of you are to thick headed to understand.

Y'all are being way too sensitive. How can anyone possibly react to an incomplete comparison.

It should probably say "some of you are to thick headed" as "grilled ribs are to boiled ribs".

We just haven't figured out who "thick headed" is in the comparative equation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Can you imagine how enormous a list of every thing you can legally do would be? Just listing "allowable actions by the batter" would be 20 pages long. Expecting such a list is rather ridiculous.

The book tells you what you CAN'T do. Generally, if it's not illegal ... it's legal.

[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.