jjskitours

With R3, R2 and infield in, a ground ball to F6 gets R3 in a rundown as R2 advances and is standing on third base. R3 is chased back to third and runs past it toward the outfield. R2 is tagged on the bag then R3 who is just beyond the bag. How many outs and why?

This is a NF question so no Type A / B. It was a base hit to the outfield. Let’s say not totally sure R1 would be thrown out. In that case put R1 back to 2nd.

R1 is obstructed by F4 on his way to 2B and is easily thrown out trying for 3B. Out or return to 2B under NF.

NF Rule 3-1-4b clearly states that the original F/DH after being substituted for on defense may reenter only ONE time

With R1 and one out, B3 hits a fly ball to right field. R1 who was stealing on the pitch believes the ball will drop in and heads for 3rd. As he gets near there, the coach screams for him to go back to first since F9 caught the fly ball. R1 turns around to go back, but before he reaches second base, F9 throws the ball to F4 who steps on second base and looks at the umpire implying that he is making an appeal. R1 having touched second base, runs back to first and stands on the bag. Is R1 out on the implied appeal or must either he or 1st base be tagged (Fed and OBR)

Wow! 1-1/2 years later and still no definitive answer from NFHS?? is the general consensus that Fed now conforms with OBR and NCAA?

There was a Case Book play 9.1.1 Situation M that specifically affirmed that this was not a time play, but it is not in the 2019 Case Book. If you find out where NF has now aligned with OBR, let me know.

Bases loaded, 2 outs, B6 hits HR. He passes R1 between 1st and 2nd and is called out (3rd out). R3 was already across home and R2 was between 3rd and home. How many runs score under NF rules? Is it the same as OBR, only 1 run (time play)?

So clearly different from NF since simply reaching over the plate is OBS? I could have sworn I read something (circa 2014) that reaching across the plate with the mitt was INT.

I know at some point this issue was discussed. However, I never found a MLB / OBR rule that clearly covers the following situation. I don't want to debate whether the batter made an attempt or not to hit the pitch. Some years ago I read something that stated F2 was not guilty of INT unless his mitt went in front of the plate v just over the plate as is the NF rule. Regardless if it is same as NF or as I thought I read before, what is the OBR reference that best covers this violation.

Thanks. Found it under “Rules”. Agree with your analysis.

Either way R2 scores so only question is where was R1. Was he already at 2nd base when F2 went into dugout (?). I assume so or there would be no question. I’m being questioned based on a short video of F2 stopping the ball and immediately falling into the dugout. If ball had stopped no question, agreed. In this case TOT.

Can anyone tell me why Joe West and his crew needed to spend more than 5 minutes to determine that ball was out of play and make the appropriate 2 base award. F2 stops moving thrown ball by F7 at the lip of the dugout, but his entire body fell into the dugout with the mitt / ball still on the lip. Was there some doubt as to whether this was a dead ball?

I’m really trying to get a clear ruling for Fed when a coach clearly attempts to avoid a fielder chasing an overthrow. However, he in fact does “hinder” the fielder either by direct contact or maybe by simply forcing the fielder to alter his route to the ball. Does 3-2-3 make it INT no matter how hard the coach attempts to avoid the fielder. After all the defense made an errant throw and of course no matter what there would still be umpires judgement as to whether there would still be any play on the runner, a ball 50-60 ft away vs 20-30 ft.

I'm confused. Do we have a consensus? If a coach unintentionally interferes with a fielder (not the ball) chasing down an overthrow, is he out under NF rule 3-2-3?

Actually I raise this situation because we had a number of veterans who believe because R2 intentionally interfered or at least attempted to interfere (I realize the putout at 1st may infer no INT), there should be a 2 out penalty. However, does the umpire wait to see if the out is made or immediately call INT when it’s obvious that it was R2’s intention to disrupt the play.

The stutter step was a clear attempt to distract F6.

R2 and no outs. On a ground ball to F6, R2 intentionally stutter steps in front of F6. However, F6 fields the ball and throws out B2. The umpire calls R2 out for INT and awards B2 first base. Does anyone disagree with this call and want to get 2 outs? Any case play to support either position under NF or OBR

These scenarios at 3rd base are nice, but I don’t believe in the OP that the preceding runner, namely R1 was entitled to 1st base, but rather was forced to second. Therefore, would it be correct that BR is safe at first and R1 out on the force at second and No passing the runner violation.

No outs, R1 stealing on the pitch. The batter hits a line shot toward F6. R1 sees it so he stops and runs full speed back to 1st. F6 unintentionally drops the ball which R1 didn't see. R1 overruns 1st as BR crosses 1st base. F6 threw to F4 and umpire called R1 out on force out. Correct or is this a case of passing runners and BR out with force being removed and R1 entitled to 1st base.

R1 stealing on the pitch. Deep fly ball that is caught at the wall. R1 was half way to 3rd and before even reaching 2nd on his way back to 1st, the throw comes into F4 who stands on 2nd and appeals. Can R1 be called out or does the ball need to go to 1st for a valid?

Just curious as to the logic of why PU has the touches at third on every situation EXCEPT a HR out of the park. Obviously, I realize the BU has no other responsibilities as the BR trots around the bases, just curious.

Not when BU goes out from the A which would leave it up to PU. How about the simplest with nobody on? Which publication covers this?

Who is responsible for the touch of 3rd base on a HR out of the park?

Can anyone address this as it pertains to my original issue. Under NF does there have to be an obvious DP in order to get 2 outs which seems to be contradictory to the 2013 Rules Interpretation no. 15 hereby noted.