- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
Uhhh ... no. The rules I posted were all from the Batter rules and were basically sub-headed On-Deck Batter. They contained information on interference and “non-interference”.
Throw Hits the On Deck Batter
- Thread starter ArmWhip
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Uhhh ... no. The rules I posted were all from the Batter rules and were basically sub-headed On-Deck Batter. They contained information on interference and “non-interference”.
You can afford to be done... because YOU ARE RIGHT!
As I read the rules posted for NFHS and USA, and the unposted rule from USSSA, it occurred to me that in each case, the word "interfere" or "interference" is used as part of both the rule and the effect. That term is already introduced, and the penalty is, well, the same as other interference calls. Dead ball being the first and most obvious. But, as with any interference call, somebody has to be interfered with! And if no one has actually been interfered with in her attempt to make a play and get an out, then we have no interference!. Yet the rules don't quite get that.
NFHS & USA Rules quoted from MIB.
First NFHS (Quite possibly the worst of the bunch): My comments are in blue type.
Now USA:
OK, so no interference, therefore no dead ball, and no runners returned.
Finally, USSSA:
"Rule 7, Sec 1.D.
The on-deck batter may not interfere with the defensive player’s opportunity to make an out.
1. If it involves a runner, the runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out.
2. If it is with the fielder fielding a fly ball, the batter is out.
NOTE: When the interference is with a thrown ball, the ball is dead and the runner closest to home is declared out. If no play is obvious then there's no play to interfere with, no player is out, but runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of interference." This is exactly the same as NFHS's nonsensical rule!
I can tell you this...if I'm the home plate umpire and this exact play occurs, there's NO WAY I'm killing the play with an interference call, because there was no out to be made that could have been interfered with. If my partner wants to talk about it (the rule, not the judgement), I'm not changing my mind. Let the coach cough up the $100 and protest. If the coach loses - which he/she should - then I won't feel bad at all that the coach is out the money. If the coach wins, I'm having this very same discussion with my UIC after the game.
Seems to me that COMP is 100% correct!
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
Comp, I’m not trying to bust your chops. I was not following your line of thought.
Testandor — thank you. That made sense (I think). The issue is with the wording of the rule — specifically the use of the word “interference” in the “no play” scenario.
This is going to be my last comment on this subject. This is the first line of the rule you posted, and applies to each and every ruleset as they all have basically the same wording.
Art. 4 . . . The on-deck batter shall not commit interference with the defensive team.
The on deck batter in the scenario posted did not interfere in any way, she was hit by a wild throw that had no effect on the play. If she didn't interfere you stop right there, there was no interference. Why are you now jumping down into the penalty section of the rule trying to apply a penalty to an interference that did not happen? There was no interference, there is no penalty to apply. As I said previously, no part of that rule applies.
The only reason I brought up the jewelry rule was to offer someone (can't recall who now) language to counter the point that an on-deck batter is not necessarily a person engaged in the game. Wearing jewelry in a high school game is a violation only when a player in the game is wearing it. The case play indicated that an on-deck batter cannot have jewelry while in the on-deck circle. Ergo, NFHS treats an on-deck batter as a player in the game. So you cannot use the Blocked Ball rule to say that when an on-deck batter contacts or is contacted by a live ball, it becomes blocked and you can immediately kill play.
Sometimes when there's a gap in one rule, we have to search other rules or case plays to close that gap. That's all I did.
Sometimes, if you read something that's been written incredibly wrong long enough, you can find some meaning. We can actually follow that rule! Let's return all those runners exactly as instructed! Let's see now, where were they at the time of interference? Ahh, that's right...there was NO interference! Nowhere to send them back to, I guess...so we won't! They get to stay wherever they ended up.
- May 29, 2015
- 3,813
- 113
That was where my confusion was Testandor ... the rule outlines the two possible outcomes. But I get what you guys are saying about the actual verbiage. I think you know what the intent is by reading it and would be remiss by ignoring the rule though ... or maybe you can. It’s your game.
So here is one of my major pet peeves ... this is the kind of thing that will see a rule interpretation issued instead of actually just fixing the darned thing.
So here is one of my major pet peeves ... this is the kind of thing that will see a rule interpretation issued instead of actually just fixing the darned thing.
Well, bureaucrats tend to do that sort of thing. It would be easier to just change the wording to "actually fix the darned thing!"
"If no play is obvious, no player is out, and runners are free to run at their own risk."
That should do it, I would say.
