After The Pitch, Interference?

[GIMNEPIWO]

Excuse my ignorance as a DA Coach & newly sanctioned Blue yet to work my first scrimmage ( thanks for the tip Wade ) , but NHFS rule 2-32 -1 : "Int is an act by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder "... It does not say that there has to be a play on a runner, or 'no play-no int' ... So, again ... the ball is live, F2 is returning the ball to F1 with runners on, Batter extends her bat beyond the limits of the batters box in whatever manner which makes contact with the thrown live ball ... ball goes in whatever direction and runners advance ... Is the batter not impeding the fielder ?

[umpinva]

NFHS Rule 5-1b Ball becomes dead immediately when the ball is illegally batted ... So, even if the catcher is not making a play ... if the batter sticks out the bat, swinging it or not & makes contact with a thrown ball ... this is a dead ball, if runners advance on the illegally batted thrown ball they're going back ... no penalty on the batter ... if I think its intentional ... warning and posibly ejection ... Am I wrong guys ?

NFHS 5.1.b does not cover F2's hitting the batter's bat when returning the ball to F1. Rule 5.1.b refers to rule 7.4.13 relating to an illegally batted ball.

Please read from the 2009 NFHS Case Book BAT HITS BALL A SECOND TIME 7.4.13 SITUATION and BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER 7.4.4 SITUATION A

[GIMNEPIWO]

NFHS Rule 5-1b Ball becomes dead immediately when the ball is illegally batted ... So, even if the catcher is not making a play ... if the batter sticks out the bat, swinging it or not & makes contact with a thrown ball ... this is a dead ball, if runners advance on the illegally batted thrown ball they're going back ... no penalty on the batter ... if I think its intentional ... warning and posibly ejection ... Am I wrong guys ?

NFHS 5.1.b does not cover F2's hitting the batter's bat when returning the ball to F1. Rule 5.1.b refers to rule 7.4.13 relating to an illegally batted ball.

Please read from the 2009 NFHS Case Book BAT HITS BALL A SECOND TIME 7.4.13 SITUATION and BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER 7.4.4 SITUATION A

Thanks... get back to you in the AM ... I'll drink that while I'm reading my coffee ...

[GIMNEPIWO]

NFHS Rule 5-1b Ball becomes dead immediately when the ball is illegally batted ... So, even if the catcher is not making a play ... if the batter sticks out the bat, swinging it or not & makes contact with a thrown ball ... this is a dead ball, if runners advance on the illegally batted thrown ball they're going back ... no penalty on the batter ... if I think its intentional ... warning and posibly ejection ... Am I wrong guys ?

NFHS 5.1.b does not cover F2's hitting the batter's bat when returning the ball to F1. Rule 5.1.b refers to rule 7.4.13 relating to an illegally batted ball.

Please read from the 2009 NFHS Case Book BAT HITS BALL A SECOND TIME 7.4.13 SITUATION and BATTER INTERFERES WITH CATCHER 7.4.4 SITUATION A

Yes, I saw that I was wrong with 5.1.b ... and I came back and posted I was wrong somewhere in this thread .....
7.4.4 Situation does not apply here ... or does it ? ... In this situation, the runners advance on the 'batted' return throw from F2 to F1 with runners on ... the question being live ball runners advance at risk , or INT & dead ball runners go back ...

[wadeintothem]

That is very odd. I admit I never noticed NFHS did not include the word "play" in their rule book definition. They do include the word "play" in their umpire training manual and guide to officiating and when decribing enforcing outs by INT in the rules itself -- but that is very strange that that word is missing from the language of the rule itself. There are some NFHS rules gurus around but I dont think they hang out here.. might ez.

That said -
As an umpire, never make the mistake of grabbing a singular sentence or rule out of a rule book and considering it prior to walking onto a field thinking about that rule. We call that looking for trouble. An umpire looking for trouble always finds it.

Make sure you have read the Case book, any other pertinent rules and rules supplements, and any umpire training material and clinics. "No Play No Interference" is training words used at clinics.

By reading everything in NFHS you understand how they want it called.. even though the way they wrote that singular sentence one could argue that if the left fielder was tying their shoe and and the on deck batter yelled "hey they are going to pitch" so the left fielder gets confused and drops her shoelace ---- that that on deck batter interfered with the left fielder.

Good point GIMNE, I have no answer as to why they wrote it that that way, I would not grasp onto that as that would be an error IMO.

[Coach11]

Wade,

Just looking to explain the neglect to include the word play.

Wouldn't ANYTHING occuring while the ball is live be considered a "play"?

Thus if a batter interferes with a catcher returning ball to pitcher, she's interfering with the play.

(On a side note, one of our set plays with a runner on first is to have the catcher return the ball to the pitcher who immediately turns and throws to first. Therefore, any such interference would in fact be hindering the play, whether the batter or ump knew it or not.)

[topper]

Wade,

Just looking to explain the neglect to include the word play.

Wouldn't ANYTHING occuring while the ball is live be considered a "play"?

Thus if a batter interferes with a catcher returning ball to pitcher, she's interfering with the play.

(On a side note, one of our set plays with a runner on first is to have the catcher return the ball to the pitcher who immediately turns and throws to first. Therefore, any such interference would in fact be hindering the play, whether the batter or ump knew it or not.)

Check how Fed defines "play". Other codes define it as an attempt to retire a batter-runner or runner.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Wade,

Just looking to explain the neglect to include the word play.

Wouldn't ANYTHING occuring while the ball is live be considered a "play"?

Thus if a batter interferes with a catcher returning ball to pitcher, she's interfering with the play.

(On a side note, one of our set plays with a runner on first is to have the catcher return the ball to the pitcher who immediately turns and throws to first. Therefore, any such interference would in fact be hindering the play, whether the batter or ump knew it or not.)

With that said : NSA Rule 1-37 ... "who impedes or confuses a defensive player while attempting to execute a play" ... So, IS a play returning the ball to the pitcher while the ball is live ? ... Wade ... I'm not really trying to look for trouble ... ( first time for everything ) ... it does not say execute a play on a runner ... and this being such an odd situation I've not found it in the Case Book and can't really find an iron clad supporting rule either way ... might never see this happen, but glad we get to discuss it here where there is no pressure from PO'd Coach's and screaming parents ... which I've yet to feel the wrath of ...

[Coach11]

Wade,

Just looking to explain the neglect to include the word play.

Wouldn't ANYTHING occuring while the ball is live be considered a "play"?

Thus if a batter interferes with a catcher returning ball to pitcher, she's interfering with the play.

(On a side note, one of our set plays with a runner on first is to have the catcher return the ball to the pitcher who immediately turns and throws to first. Therefore, any such interference would in fact be hindering the play, whether the batter or ump knew it or not.)

Check how Fed defines "play". Other codes define it as an attempt to retire a batter-runner or runner.

Understood....which is why I included my sidenote. When my catcher returns the ball to the pitcher, she is in fact making a play on the runner, albeit indirectly.

Hey GIMNE.....as a newbie here I realize I don't know the ins and outs of this board....But I haven't taken your comments (or anyone elses) as anything other than a discussion on the matter. Should I start including disclaimers as well? {G}

[topper]

With that said : NSA Rule 1-37 ... "who impedes or confuses a defensive player while attempting to execute a play" ... So, IS a play returning the ball to the pitcher while the ball is live ? ... Wade ... I'm not really trying to look for trouble ... ( first time for everything ) ... it does not say execute a play on a runner ... and this being such an odd situation I've not found it in the Case Book and can't really find an iron clad supporting rule either way ... might never see this happen, but glad we get to discuss it here where there is no pressure from PO'd Coach's and screaming parents ... which I've yet to feel the wrath of ...

Some codes make it a little easier than others:

NCAA - 11.22.2 - If the catcher is not making a play on a base runner but the batter interferes with the catcher’s return throw to the pitcher, the umpire should call time and return the runner(s) to the base occupied at the time of the accidental interference.

This doesn't help in Coach11's situation of a snap throw from the pitcher to 1st. It will be hard to sell to an umpire since it is not as obvious a "play" as other similar ones (ie. a runner interferring with the initial relay throw.)