Skip to main content

NFHS rules...Georgia high school...

Had a conversation with an umpire the other night and he said for a batter to interfere with a catchers throw on a steal attempt that physical contact was neccessary under Georgia high school rules. Specifically, we were talking about how hitters will fall towards the plate after a swing into fair territory...he also said that if one foot was still in the box interference would not be called. He said he could show me in the interpretations that contact had to take place.

Is this true nationally, just in Georgia or was he full of hot air?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Under NFHS rules, which should apply in Georgia, neither physical contact nor an actual throw is necessary. The catcher does need to attempt to throw. The batter is entitled to the box, but having just one foot in the box doesn't qualify as being in the box. From the Casebook:

7.3.5 SITUATION A: With R1 going to third, B2 steps across home plate to hinder F2 who is fielding the ball or throwing to third, or attempting to throw to third.
RULING: If R1 is tagged out despite the hindrance, the interference is ignored, and with less than two outs, the ball remains alive. If R1 is not tagged out, B2 is declared out, and when there are less than two outs, the ball becomes dead immediately and all runners must return to the bases occupied at time of the pitch.
I would agree with PIAA, standing up is not really an attempt but some type of arm movement pobably is. It is possible to stay totally in the box and have interference but is less likely. This is a call that happens much more than it is called. Either the umpire doesn't truly understand it, as in your case, or they don't want to make an unpopular call.
Lets say that R2 is attempting to steal 3rd. The batter takes the pitch and does not move in the box at all. The catcher comes up to throw but does not because the batter is in direct line with him and third base. I have heard coaches say that next time throw it through the batters ear hole. What would you have if the catcher does not throw and if he throws and it hits the batter in his ear hole while never moving at all. Again I am not arguing just wanting to see what more veteran umpires would have in this situation. I am always trying to listen and in this case read and learn.
The batters box offers the batter some limited protection. He can not be expected to disappear.

It does not mean that he can not interefere while still in the box, he certainly can, but just standing still is not interference......

Catchers need to throw around the batter....if the batter does nothing....I have nothing...If he throws and hits the batter.......then play on........

If he throws the ball through the batters ear hole deliberately then Im getting at least 2 ejections....(Catcher and coach who told him to do it.)

Actually standing still is the best thing the batter can do.....many times I have seen interference calls come from the batter trying to get out of the way of the catcher...........
Last edited by piaa_ump
As dash stated, the majority of such interference calls is when the batter's momentum carries him into the path of the catcher attempting to throw to 2nd. My question: is there ever a time when the batter's momentum carries him into the line of the catcher's throw and it's not interference? The reason I ask is that there are many swings that cause the batter to lose balance and fall that direction and it seems evident that the batter was not trying to interfere....or is it automatic interference if batter's momentum puts him in the way? No contact is made just blocking the line of sight of the catcher...?
6.06c says nothing about intentional. I contend that even if you require intention, I would default to it being intentional unless I have evidence to the contrary.
I have a running argument with a good friend of mine that believes the batter needs to be able to complete his swing. I tell him I agree and I will allow him to do so if he stays in the box doing it. As you work a game take note how many times you see a batter step accross the plate with no runners on. I feel fairly certain you will see at best a 90/10 split. I think I am being generous in that number.
quote:
Originally posted by HawksCoach:
Michael - is the Fed rule different than OBR? The comment in 6.06(c) of OBR says that if a swing unintentionally causes the batter interference that the runner is returned but no out called. This situation happened to Derek Jeter about a month ago in a Yankee game.

Yes it is different. Jeter was called for "backswing" or soft interference (you quoted the correct rule). It occurs when the bat contacts the catcher after the swing. Strike, dead ball, return the runner(s). Neither FED nor NCAA has a similar provision.
quote:
Originally posted by dash_riprock:
Neither FED nor NCAA has a similar provision.

Well, FED has a provision, and it isn't similar--the batter is out. Casebook:
7.3.5 SITUATION F: With R1 on third, one out and two strikes on B3, B3 swings at and misses the pitch. The ball bounces off F2’s glove into the air, where it is hit by B3’s follow-through. The ball rolls to the back stop. B3 reaches first base safely and R1 scores. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. B3 is out for interference and R1 returns to third base. A batter is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to hit the ball, just as the catcher is entitled to an uninterrupted opportunity to field the ball. Once the batter swings, he is responsible for his follow-through."

"8.4.1 SITUATION H: B1 swings and misses a pitch for strike three. As F2 is attempting to catch the pitch, B1 hits F2 with the bat on the follow-through, hindering F2’s attempt to catch the ball. RULING: B1 is out for interference."


NCAA has a provision and it is very similar to OBR:
6-2d
"(2) If the catcher is in the act of making a throw to retire a runner and the batter is in the batter’s box and his normal follow-through unintentionally strikes the catcher or the ball while the catcher is in the act of throwing, “Time” is called and runners return (unless the catcher’s initial throw retires the runner)." 6-2 is too long to quote here, but it also says the batter could be out if the pitch was strike 3, but the ball wasn't caught.

The BRD can be useful at times!
Last edited by 3FingeredGlove

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×