What is the NFHS call

Runner on first, ground ball to the second baseman, who throws to the SS for the force,  the runner on first starts towards second but then (????) sliding returns to first where he gets in the way of the first baseman who is in the process of fielding the throw from the SS. The first baseman does not catch the throw.....what the call? I have interference with the first baseman DP.

Original Post
POLOGREEN posted:

Runner on first, ground ball to the second baseman, who throws to the SS for the force,  the runner on first starts towards second but then (????) sliding returns to first where he gets in the way of the first baseman who is in the process of fielding the throw from the SS. The first baseman does not catch the throw.....what the call? I have interference with the first baseman DP.

That's nothing.

What rule gives you interference?

SECTION 21 INTERFERENCE — OFFENSIVE, UMPIRE, SPECTATOR ART. 1 . . . Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play; 

I would agree with Polo ... interference.

NewUmpire posted:

Interference need not be intentional.  Think the batter whose swing carries him over the plate and interferes with catcher making a throw ... or follow through interference when the follow through swing hits the catcher.  

 

In this case, it does. 8-4-2g: "intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball." 5-1-1e states that a retired runner is treated the same as any other runner with regard to this clause.

Agree that IF the interference was INTENTIONAL.. then definitely a DP.

Agree a retired runner is treated as a live runner in this case.

However 8-4-2-g covers all interferences.

I just don't see how R1 returning can not be interference.

 

 

8-4-1-h

SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT ART. 1 . . . The batter-runner is out when:

h. any runner or retired runner interferes (2-21-1, 2-30-3) in a way which obviously hinders an obvious double play;

 

Also in 8-4-2-g

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball. A fielder is not protected, except from intentional contact if he misplays the ball and has to move from his original location; or his being put out is prevented by an illegal act by anyone connected with the team (2-21-1, 3-2-2, 3) or by the batter-runner; for runner returning to base (8-2-6); and for runner being hit by a batted ball (8-4-2k). If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner including the batterrunner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out (the runner who interfered and the other runner involved). If a retired runner interferes, and in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out. If the umpire is uncertain who would have been played on, the runner closest to home shall be called out;

As stated at the very beginning of 8-4-2-g, "Any runner is out when he: intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball.....".  Looks pretty plain to me. The portion you highlight states that you can get a double play if he does interfere which the first part of the rule says it must be intentional, at least on a thrown ball.

The runner from 1st  heads towards 2nd sees the throw to 2nd and returns to 1st sliding into 1st base. The 1st baseman tries to catch the return throw from the SS but has to get out of the way of the sliding runner, thus he cannot make a catch and the ball hits the batter/runner.

roothog66 posted:

IN my mind, though, I'm trying to picture how he "interfered. "Getting in the way of" and "interfered with" are not the same thing.

Maybe this helps (or maybe not).

The play meets the DEFINITION of Interference -- that is, the offense altered the play.

But, not every "alteration of play" has a penalty -- only those listed in rule 8.  The definition allows the rules writers to just use the word "Interference" in the penalty section instead of constantly repeating "hinders, confuses, alters the play ..."

If they meant ALL interference to be an out, then the rule / penalty would only be one sentence, instead of containing such qualifiers as "intentionally" or "thrown ball" or "batted ball before it passes a fielder" etc.

noumpere posted:
roothog66 posted:

IN my mind, though, I'm trying to picture how he "interfered. "Getting in the way of" and "interfered with" are not the same thing.

Maybe this helps (or maybe not).

The play meets the DEFINITION of Interference -- that is, the offense altered the play.

But, not every "alteration of play" has a penalty -- only those listed in rule 8.  The definition allows the rules writers to just use the word "Interference" in the penalty section instead of constantly repeating "hinders, confuses, alters the play ..."

If they meant ALL interference to be an out, then the rule / penalty would only be one sentence, instead of containing such qualifiers as "intentionally" or "thrown ball" or "batted ball before it passes a fielder" etc.

My response was to the OP's description as "got in the way" of the first baseman fielding the throw back to first. I'm just not picturing how the runner, sliding back into first, could be doing anything that would meet the standard.

First baseman has his foot on the bag, the runner (Remember he was put out at second base) slides into the bag as the first baseman is attempting to field the ball. The first baseman does an "ole" type of move to avoid being spiked and misses the throw...I have interference.then moves out of the path of the runner sliding into first.

 

POLOGREEN posted:

First baseman has his foot on the bag, the runner (Remember he was put out at second base) slides into the bag as the first baseman is attempting to field the ball. The first baseman does an "ole" type of move to avoid being spiked and misses the throw...I have interference.then moves out of the path of the runner sliding into first.

 

Duh. I was misunderstanding the play completely. In my mind, the out was made at first and the runner was returning to first after the force at second was extinguished. Reading comprehension is important, boys and girls.

A very similar play happened in MLB last year or the year prior ( some reasonably competent googler can find it). That led to OBR adding "or returning" to the below comment in the rules. I'd have it the same in all codes.

Rule 6.01(a )(5) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to
advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched
base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be
considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×