In this video, we compare how this play in an MLB playoff game would be enforced differently under NFHS (High School) rules. You can find our previous video here: • Enforcing Detached Equ...
It's important to note that the distinction between NFHS and OBR is only in place if the runner is stealing. NFHS will invoke batter interference if the runner is stealing as in this video. However, if the runner is not stealilng, both rule sets are consistent with simply calling a dead ball, and returning runners to TOP base.
R-1 advanced because the pitcher bounced a pitch in the dirt and F-2 did not handle the pitch. The backswing contact was irrelevant in regard to R-1 advancing. Bureaucrats in Indianapolis who have never umpired want me to call R-1 out because F-1 threw a pitch in the dirt which F-2 could not handle. Is this fair?
In NFHS rules, If you have runners on 1st and 2nd base - and both are attempting to advance on this play where you have follow through interference - who is out? Both runners? In this situation - it is strike 3 on the batter and there are 0 outs prior to the pitch
you put out the runner the defense was attempting to play on when the interference occurred. if the umpire is unsure which runner the defense would have played on because there were multiple possible plays, the runner closest to home is put out for the interference of his teammate. NFHS 8-4-2g (last couple of sentences)
This is great. But on this follow through interference, if the catcher throws a stealing runner out anyway, the out stands and leave the batter at bat, pending it wasn't strike 3.
2 things. First 0-0 count r1 trying to steal batter swings and misses and commits follow through interference.runner is sent back Is it now 0-1 or 0-2? The “add a strike.” Is confusing me. Second. What if nobody is on base? I think I blew this call before and just called the hitter out.
What if the batter hit catcher’s mite prior to the pitch? I’ve seen a guy during practice swing bring his bat like a golf backswing that would mess with the catcher’s mite. Can’t find anything on this. It doesn’t matter since no pitch has been made yet i suppose?
Officiating the play in the video using NFHS rules, the catcher had no play on R1 as the ball was away from the catcher before the interference occurred. thus the condition of 7-3-5 Penalty "... in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs)" hasn't been met (assuming I'm the one doing the judgmentationing). Shouldn't we simply send R1 back to 1B just as in OBR?
You could make that argument and probably rule that way in an NFHS game. General rule of thumb would be if a 50/50 call is going to be made, you make it for the offended team. The defense was interfered with, and R1 advanced only after seeing the ball get away from the catcher. My question to you though is, what rule are you using to put the runner back to 1st? As you said, you are judging that the catcher had no play on the runner. But this rule for NFHS says specifically that follow-through interference can only be called on "an attempt to put out a runner". If you read there is no play, wouldn't that mean you have nothing on this play and can't send the runner back? I think where you and I undoubtedly agree, is that the NFHS rule does not promote a sense of reasonable fairness when dealing with this situation, especially compared to OBR. In the spirit of fair play, I would certainly like to see your suggestion be the correct answer!
@@UmpireClassroom To answer your question about what rule I would use to send the runner back: The way I've been taught in my association and the way I read the relevant rules, the question of whether interference occurred is separate from the question of the penalty. Interference occurred when the Batter 7-3-5 "Interfered with the catcher's fielding or throwing by:" c. "...follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher's attempt to play on a runner". The batter's follow-through has unquestionably interfered with the catcher's fielding and actions at home plate. Offensive interference is an immediate dead ball, unless the catcher has an immediate play on a runner in which case we wait to see the outcome of the catcher's initial throw if there are less than 2 out (5-1-1d, 5-1-2a(1), 7-3-5 Penalty). Since interference has occurred and the catcher was not making a throw attempting to retire a runner, the ball is dead and no runner may advance while the ball is dead. The runner is not put out because in the judgment of the umpire the interference did not "prevent a possible double-play". Thus, the runner must return to the base occupied at the time of pitch. This would apply to any interference by a retired runner or batter (8-4-2g) - interference makes the ball dead and no runner may advance beyond the base occupied at ToI or ToP (depending on which rule you're applying), but whether anyone (else) is put out depends on whether "in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play" (7-3-5 Penalty) or "in the judgment of the umpire, another runner could have been put out" (8-4-2g).
@@UmpireClassroom I was looking for an interp for something else, and happened across this other one and immediately remembered our conversation on this play... NFHS Interpretations 2011: *SITUATION 5:* With one out, R2 gets a great jump at first base and is just a couple of feet from second base when B3 strikes out. B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher, who drops the ball and cannot throw to second base. RULING: The ball is declared dead when play is no longer possible. B3 is out on strikes for out No. 2. _Since the catcher had no possible play on R2 (being so close to second base at the time of the interference), R2 is returned to first base._ (7-3-5c Penalty) [emphasis added]
@@davej3781 This scenario happens with a pitch is in the dirt, and a swing and a miss. I had this scenario Friday. R-2 easily advanced to third base because the pitch went to the backstop. There was no possible play on R-2. It was not strike three. I returned R-2 to second base. I did not call the batter out because he did not interfere with an actual play. The penalty was R-2 must return.
What happens if it is a 1-1 count with runners at first and second. The follow through hits the catcher and the ball gets away from catcher, but no one advances.
Most likely, this means you had no runners attempting to advance on the pitch. I would try to kill play as soon as the interference occurs and simply have a reset. The trick is to kill play before runners try to advance. This gets you out of the situation before the crazy really takes off
Why I don’t like this rule: when this happens, in most cases, the catcher has begun his move out of the catchers box. There is no way for the batter to know this, nor should it be his responsibility to “shorten his follow through”. Just about every time we see this, the catcher is not completely in the box or has moved towards the batter. I suppose if the umpire deemed that the batter had intentionally done such, then the rule should be applied. In this case, the catcher had no chance at the runner, he was probably a punter/kicker in his past athletic endeavors….
Batter has the right to swing at a pitch. Once he swings and misses his rights have ended. The catcher had a right to glove the pitch unhindered. A catcher doesn’t have time to mover forward very far, and had a right to do so.
@@UmpireClassroom I believe it’s Carlson as plate umpire. You can see him in the video directing R-1 back to first base in the MLB game. In high school R-1 is out if the umpire rules there was an actual play possible.
Pitcher bounced a pitch to home plate which was not handled by the catcher. Hunter Pence advancing to second base had nothing to do with A.J. being hit in the head with the batter’s backswing. The fair ruling should be batter out on strikes and R-1 safe at second base. The issue is no runner can advance on interference so R-1 is returned to first base, but it’s not a fair outcome. M.L.B. has always called this scenario “ soft interference.” The batter technically interfered but his interference had no effect on the play.
Backswing: It’s when batter hits the catcher before the pitch. Which the umpire call time and reset pitcher/batter. Follow through after the swing hits the batter. The penalty is the batter gets a strike.
Is this a case in which the N.F.H.S. rules committee in Indianapolis has again messed with a baseball rule which doesn’t need their interpretation? Why can’t high school ball players use official baseball rules? My guess is N.F.H.S. makes “ follow through “ interference punitive in an effort to promote safety.
I would not call this, personally. 1) Ball kicks away from the catcher and there's no way he's getting him out. 2) That was an obvious flop. Not going to reward him for that. Had he not flopped, nobody would call anything.
You are incorrect. Whether A.J. “ flopped “ or not is irrelevant. R-1 was returned to first base because the batter contacted the catcher with the follow through of his swing. It’s not interference but the contact means no runners can advance. The rule could be changed to umpire judgement but as of now the rule is inflexible. The follow through bat contact had nothing to do with Hunter Pence advancing to second base.
