Jump to content
conbo61

2017 NFHS Interpretations

Recommended Posts


Register or Sign In to remove these ads

I like them. I especially like the clarity of Sit 16 and 17, a common sense application of a tricky situation that i've had occur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a run score in Sit 14?

SITUATION 14: With runners on second and third, and a fly ball is hit deep to right field, the third-base coach grabs the third base runner’s shirt to force him to tag properly. The runner from second base legally tags as the ball is caught. Both runners, during the course of the play, score. RULING: The runner at third base is called out immediately when the coach physically assisted him in tagging properly. Play continues and the run scored by the second-base runner will count. (3-2-2 Penalty, 8-4-2s)

When this exists in the delayed dead ball table:

10. A coach physically assists a runner. 5-1-2f Involved batter-runner or runner is out. Outs on play stand. Other runners return to bases occupied at time of infraction. 3-2-2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Why would a run score in Sit 14?

SITUATION 14: With runners on second and third, and a fly ball is hit deep to right field, the third-base coach grabs the third base runner’s shirt to force him to tag properly. The runner from second base legally tags as the ball is caught. Both runners, during the course of the play, score. RULING: The runner at third base is called out immediately when the coach physically assisted him in tagging properly. Play continues and the run scored by the second-base runner will count. (3-2-2 Penalty, 8-4-2s)

When this exists in the delayed dead ball table:

10. A coach physically assists a runner. 5-1-2f Involved batter-runner or runner is out. Outs on play stand. Other runners return to bases occupied at time of infraction. 3-2-2

 

Looks like the DDB table hasn't been updated to reflect the rule change in 3-2-2.

Case play 3.2.2 B says runners can advance.

*3.2.2 SITUATION B:

With R1 on third base and one out, B3 hits a fly ball that (a) F8 is about to catch, (b) is going over the fence for a home run or (c) bounces off the fence into play, as R1’s coach at third physically assists R1 at third base.

RULING: R1 is called out immediately because of his coach’s physical assistance. In all cases the ball shall remain live and any subsequent outs or advances by runners shall be allowed. In (a), F8’s catch would be the third out of the inning. In (b), if there had been two outs instead of one out at the time of the pitch, the physical assistance by the coach would have been the third out. As a result, B3’s home run would not have counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it seems coach assistance is no longer a DDB. We're just calling the out and moving on with the play. There's no "awards"or bases to return runner to..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Situation 18 in line with the rulebook? We award the base (and the subsequent run) on the OBS even though it becomes a time play with the 3rd out being made before the runner crosses the plate?

OBS happens before the out so we count it... As long as it's not a force out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Looks like the DDB table hasn't been updated to reflect the rule change in 3-2-2.

Case play 3.2.2 B says runners can advance.

*3.2.2 SITUATION B:

With R1 on third base and one out, B3 hits a fly ball that (a) F8 is about to catch, (b) is going over the fence for a home run or (c) bounces off the fence into play, as R1’s coach at third physically assists R1 at third base.

RULING: R1 is called out immediately because of his coach’s physical assistance. In all cases the ball shall remain live and any subsequent outs or advances by runners shall be allowed. In (a), F8’s catch would be the third out of the inning. In (b), if there had been two outs instead of one out at the time of the pitch, the physical assistance by the coach would have been the third out. As a result, B3’s home run would not have counted.

Left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing. The rule change to 3-2-2 clarified when to call the runner out, although other than the strange NCAA rule, most of us would have done it right away anyway. In making the change, FED eliminated, I would think on purpose,  the rest of the rule wording which if they had just corrected it and corrected the DDB table, it would have been clear to all.

Anyway for purposes of ruling on a protest does the remaining phrase  in the rulebook trump the caseplay, interps, and test questions this year? it used to be the rule trumped unless the caseplay dealt with ambiguity. 

Be nice if someone came out and said we want to call it like OBR and we missed the DDB table and we will not include any test question regarding this rule in your score. Aside, if that question made a difference in your score and it made a difference in your qualifications you have other problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say given they made it a 2017 interp, the fact that it still remains in the dead ball table is an oversight.

We have a rule that doesn't mention returning runners to their bases TOI, and a case play that says runners may continue to advance after the INT.

That's enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, scrounge said:

I like them. I especially like the clarity of Sit 16 and 17, a common sense application of a tricky situation that i've had occur.

We've had discussions on these types of plays before, here, and some have held to "FED is different" when OBS is the proximate cause of the runner missing the base.

 

I'm glad to see the clarification.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Richvee said:

I would say given they made it a 2017 interp, the fact that it still remains in the dead ball table is an oversight.

We have a rule that doesn't mention returning runners to their bases TOI, and a case play that says runners may continue to advance after the INT.

That's enough for me.

Thats enough for me also. But if someone wanted to argue, coach assist is listed as a form of interference in the definitions. FED returns all runners TOI by rule. And the DDB table complies with returning runners TOI when coach assist interference occurs. 

Why they would announce the change as a clarification about when to call the runner out and not note the change regarding runners advance is puzzling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've had discussions on these types of plays before, here, and some have held to "FED is different" when OBS is the proximate cause of the runner missing the base.
 
I'm glad to see the clarification.


You're welcome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a State Interpreter's meeting last night, the instructions were to delete 5-1-2f and move g to f.

Also, in the table on page 36 to cross out / delete no. 10.

I think these errors are just par for the course - s... happens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jjskitours said:

At a State Interpreter's meeting last night, the instructions were to delete 5-1-2f and move g to f.

Also, in the table on page 36 to cross out / delete no. 10.

I think these errors are just par for the course - s... happens.

They also need to cross out Coach Assist from the Interference definition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 11:57 PM, Jimurray said:

Be nice if someone came out and said we want to call it like OBR and we missed the DDB table and we will not include any test question regarding this rule in your score. Aside, if that question made a difference in your score and it made a difference in your qualifications you have other problems.

We want you to call it like OBR and we missed the DDB table. 

It is on my "to-do" list at this year's meeting in June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lawump said:

We want you to call it like OBR and we missed the DDB table. 

It is on my "to-do" list at this year's meeting in June.

************Beware************ I am going to be, oh so mean to you now.

Do you get your name and others their name plastered all over the newspapers throughout the country, for this "misapplication" of the rule (DDB table) in the rule book, and your reputation sullied all over the place like the guys in the George Bret incident or the Fieldin Culbreth situation. What is the penalty for this misapplication of a rule in the (DDB table). This is not a judgment call situation, it is a misapplication of the new rule in the DDB table.

So, how much is the fine and how many days off/suspension for this discretion.

Inquiring minds want to know.

My only hope is that you can keep your sense of humor concerning this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

************Beware************ I am going to be, oh so mean to you now.

Do you get your name and others their name plastered all over the newspapers throughout the country, for this "misapplication" of the rule (DDB table) in the rule book, and your reputation sullied all over the place like the guys in the George Bret incident or the Fieldin Culbreth situation. What is the penalty for this misapplication of a rule in the (DDB table). This is not a judgment call situation, it is a misapplication of the new rule in the DDB table.

So, how much is the fine and how many days off/suspension for this discretion.

Inquiring minds want to know.

My only hope is that you can keep your sense of humor concerning this post.

Please don't sully the reputation of Joe Brinkman and his crew.  They correctly applied the rule in the George Brett incident (it had happened before in MLB history).  The commissioner just decided to change the rule when ruling on the protest.

Being a member of the clan O'Sullivan...there is nothing I can do to save my sullied reputation, but please don't bring down poor Joe and his crew to my level.

As a result of my failure, however, I am donating my entire salary from serving on the rules committee to the old folks home for retired baseball coaches.  It's a 9.01 (c) non-profit entity.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 9:10 PM, lawump said:

Please don't sully the reputation of Joe Brinkman and his crew.  They correctly applied the rule in the George Brett incident (it had happened before in MLB history).  The commissioner just decided to change the rule when ruling on the protest.

Being a member of the clan O'Sullivan...there is nothing I can do to save my sullied reputation, but please don't bring down poor Joe and his crew to my level.

As a result of my failure, however, I am donating my entire salary from serving on the rules committee to the old folks home for retired baseball coaches.  It's a 9.01 (c) non-profit entity.

 

 

More of a comment on the under the microscope situation and the perception is reality situation for Joe's crew.

That situation shows the perpetual problem of MLB to be reactive (let sleeping dogs lie until we have to deal with it, or basically the it will never happen theory) with the rules, rather than being proactive on a rule and making a change before it happens in a major situation, which it did. And not having umpires on the committee back then did not help IMHO.

However, isn't it amazing what 1 crotchety old geezer/miser/cheap skate/ can get put into the rules by being on the rules committee.

And there had been upheld cases on this that we are not privy to. you can go up and down in the pages below.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xpJpGrFHViQC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=calvin+griffith+on+official+baseball+rules+committee&source=bl&ots=HE9PDGr08r&sig=JplXaXy3Zpj9Q0hAbt3pPTIAeKE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtrq_b8-LSAhXFZiYKHdYBBQgQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=calvin griffith on official baseball rules committee&f=false

And from an article below by Dick Kaegel-I took out owners name mentioned in parens and team name in parens.

"FYI, the 18-inch rule came about in 1955 because some club owners, led by owner (I will let the owner remain anonymous here, but he did have a HOF player with 573 home runs-dd) of the old  (anonymous-dd) team, were losing too many baseballs because of pine tar smudges from bats. In those days, owners coveted and counted the balls in stark contrast to today when they're routinely tossed into the stands".

Joe's first year as crew chief, if the stats are right, as he had been working under Marty Springstead for years.

And I don't want I want to pick on the man from Myrtle Beach down in your neck of the woods who was in on this. Ruling on the field should have been upheld, and then in the very next sentence immediately been changed using the clause "in the best interests of baseball" until the written rule could be changed or clarified more the next year by the rules committee and written into the 1984 book.

Enjoy your upcoming games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×