Mike D

NFHS The coach or his representative is given 3 free visits per game, and 1 per inning in extra innings. He can use them all in one inning if he likes. On the 4th visit he must replace the pitcher. Visits where the pitcher is replaced do not count toward the 3 free visits Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Once the Time has been called and the ball ruled dead, there isn't any taking it back. The only thing that can be done to "fix" the situation is the umpires would get together and attempt to determine where the runners would have ended up without time being called, then place the runners. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yes, the runner must correct base running errors during awards. Here is a case that shows this 8.2.6 SITUATION C: R1 is on first base when B2 hits a fly ball to F9 who overthrows first base in an attempt to double up R1. The throw goes wild and into the dugout. R1 is awarded second base and third base. (a) R1 fails to retouch first base, or (b) R1 fails to touch second base on his way to third base. RULING: Upon proper defensive appeal, the umpire will declare R1 out in (a) and (b). Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

In NFHS, obstruction is always a 1 base award from the position on the bases. The award is always forward. Since this happened going into 2nd he would be protected to 2nd base and/or awarded 2nd. As the obstruction happened, the umpire would point and say, "that's obsteuction" and wait for the playing action to cease. As the defense attempted the appeal at 1st for leaving early, the play would be killed and the award made to 2nd. The runner would then have the opportunity to complete his running responsibilities (tagging up at 1st then completing the award). If the runner did not tag up, the defense could then appeal the leaving early/not retouching 1st when the ball is put back into play. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yes. Warning and then ejection of it happens again. 3.3.1(b) 8.3.2 Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

NFHS 3.3.1© Carelessly thrown bat. 1st instance is a team warning. Subsequent instances are an ejection (if the batter reaches base safely he is replaced) Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Let me try to be a little more clear with my explaination. Intent is not always needed for interference or obstruction. While some instances of intentional action do constitute interference (swatting at a ball or glove) most interference calls do not have the requirement of being intentional. They're is not a zone that we do not make calls in, at least with FED rules. If a runner hinders a fielder making a play on a batted ball out is interference, no matter where it is. Likewise if a fielder blocks a runners path without the ball it is obstruction. If the catcher was making a play on a batted ball and the BR hinders that play it is interference. If the catcher is not the protected fielder making the play on batted ball it would be obstruction. In cases of contact between a runner and a fielder making a play on a batted ball the onus is on the runner to avoid the fielder even if that fielder is in the base path. The incidental contact would come in where neither of those conditions are met. These are situations where the runner has been allowed to reach the base, and the fielder is receiving a throw from another fielder and the two players contact over a base. (This is also not due to an illegal slide) Incidental contact can not happen with a fielder making a play on a batted ball, just as incidental contact can not happen when a fielder blocks the base path without the ball. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

There is no such thing as a NCZ. You would have to judge incidental contact, interference or obstruction. Once the ball has been batted (or bunted) the BR becomes a runner and is subject to the interference rules if he runs into a protected fielder making a play on a batted ball, including F2. (This will most likely never happen as the catcher has to come out of the crouch as the BR is already on his way to 1st). Also FED makes not mention that the throw has to be quality, and you may call a RLV because a quality throw could not be made (the only rule set that allows this) Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This is a new one. They must have changed the interpretation this year. In the past t he fielder only needed to keep possession through the tag. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You are correct, in FED the catcher has to have the ball in order to block the plate. In watching the video IMO the catcher was moving to catch the ball which took ghim into the runners path (OBS). It didn't look like the runner had time to avoid the catcher and was bracing himself, and I didn't see malicious contact. I most likely would have deemed this incidental contact. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Depends: A team is allowed to start an inning with only 8 players; so just having 8 players on the field would in itself not negate the play. It would depend on how many players were listed on the lineup card with the PU. If 9 players are in the game on the lineup card and only 8 are on the field, the PU should not be putting the ball in play. It's also a bit of incorrect semantics to say the HR was negated. The correct way to describe the situation would be to say that it was a "no-pitch" because the ball becomes dead at the TOP because the requirements for a legal pitch had not been met. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The only time a 4th out appeal comes into play is when it is an appeal that would nullify a run, usually a missed base by a preceding runner. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It is an appeal - time play Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If it crosses the foul line it's a ball. If it doesn't make it that far it's a balk. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

10.2.3 n. Order the lights turned on whenever he believes darkness could make further play hazardous. Whenever possible, lights should be turned on at the beginning of an inning. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk