Drag Bunt/INT

[Thunderheads]

 

What is the relevant rule, in your opinion?

 

*sigh* Same one you think is relevant.

 

hang on a minute ........

Steve is on the INT team here .... you maven, are not based on post #48

[maven]

Hence the sigh.

 

We have different interpretations of what hindering F2's "throwing" means.

[Thunderheads]

Hence the sigh.

 

We have different interpretations of what hindering F2's "throwing" means.

10-4

[grayhawk]

Hence the sigh.

We have different interpretations of what hindering F2's "throwing" means.

Ok, I understand your interpretation there. Do we agree that the thrown ball was hindered by the batter?

[maven]

 

Hence the sigh.

We have different interpretations of what hindering F2's "throwing" means.

Ok, I understand your interpretation there. Do we agree that the thrown ball was hindered by the batter?

 

 

No. You can't hinder a ball: it has no intentions, and thus is not trying to do anything.

 

We're not going to redo this whole thread, are we? I don't think anyone is an idiot to disagree on this particular matter, it's just not how I plan to rule on it, the one time I see it in the next 700 years.

[ricka56]

This question is to those who would not call interference in the OP, but would if B did something intentional.

 

If 7-3-5 doesn't apply in the unintentional case, what rule would you envoke for the intentional case?

[grayhawk]

After Maven posted the comments from the Ohio NFHS Rules Interpreter, I decided to email Ken Allan who is the CA State Rules Interpreter and member of the NFHS Rules Committee.  Here is how the email thread went:

 

First, my email to Ken.  I didn't want to provide my opinion to him, so I just posted the play as is from the OP:

 

Hi Ken,

I hope you are well. I was hoping to get your opinion on this play that was posted on one of the umpire forums that I read.

FED rules. LH batter attempts to drag bunt with a runner on 1st and misses. His momentum takes him up the line and ends up about 5-10 feet
up the 1B line. Runner on first got off the bag too far and the catcher tries to pick him off first. Throw hits the batter who is up the line.

Ruling?

Thanks!
Steve

 

Here is his original response:

 

Hi Steve:

 

I have nothing on this provided the batter did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The ball is live and in play.

Ken Allan
State Interpreter

 

So Ken's ruling is the same as Maven and Dash.  I wanted more detail, so I sent him the following:

 

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure I understand why we are giving so much latitude to the batter in this situation.

- We have a batter out of the batter's box hindering a catcher's play being made on a runner
- While a runner interfering with a thrown ball must be intentional, I don't see how this also applies to batters
- If this were a right handed batter who attempted to push bunt and was in front of the plate with F2 hitting him with his throw trying to put out R1
stealing, we would get batter's interference every time. How is it different with a lefty drag bunting?

I guess I just don't see how the rules support not calling batter's interference in this situation. Any additional commentary on the above would be appreciated. Thanks, as always, for your help!

Best,
Steve

 

Here is his reply:

 

Hi Steve:

After more research, it was discovered that the interpretation I sent you is several years old and does not reflect the widely accepted current ruling.
As a result, I believe the NFHS will issue an updated approved ruling for the 2015 season. That interpretation will align the NFHS with MLB and other
groups in that the play you described will result in the batter being called out for interference. When that new approved ruling is published, you can
take pride in the fact it is there because of your inquiry. Meantime, should the play occur in a 2014 game played under NFHS rules, allow it to
stand.

Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.

Ken Allan
State Interpreter
Member, NFHS Rules Committee

 

I guess we'll see if that interpretation finds it's way into the 2015 approved rulings.  In the unlikely chance that this happens for the rest of this season, I will rule that it's nothing.  It's been a great discussion and just shows how folks on two sides of a complex issue can find the gray area that needs to be addressed.

[Richvee]

Great thread. Great discussion. Love the treads that teach us!

[soupcan]

This question is to those who would not call interference in the OP, but would if B did something intentional.

 

If 7-3-5 doesn't apply in the unintentional case, what rule would you envoke for the intentional case?

If he did something intentional then I have interference.

[ALStripes17]

This question is to those who would not call interference in the OP, but would if B did something intentional.

If 7-3-5 doesn't apply in the unintentional case, what rule would you envoke for the intentional case?

If he did something intentional then I have interference.

Under what rule? A cite was requested.

[zoops]

8-4-2g would be the rule reference for the intentional interference with a thrown ball.  Problem appears to be here that it's open to interpretation whether it's batter interference or runner interference.  Hopefully this one makes it into the case book.

 

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

[grayhawk]

8-4-2g would be the rule reference for the intentional interference with a thrown ball.  Problem appears to be here that it's open to interpretation whether it's batter interference or runner interference.  Hopefully this one makes it into the case book.

 

g. intentionally interferes with a throw or a thrown ball; or he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball.

 

It's not open to interpretation that this player is still a batter.  He has not finished his time at bat - this is a fact.

 

2-7-1 defines what a batter is.

2-7-3 defines what a batter-runner is.

2-30-2 defines what a runner is.

 

8-4-2 starts out:  "Any runner is out when he:" so it's clear that 8-4-2g does not apply to batters.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

If 7-3-5 doesn't apply in the unintentional case, what rule would you envoke for the intentional case?

10-2-3-g

[johnnyg08]

I would say 10-15' up the line is an intentional act. This is no different from a batter's full swing pulling him in front of home plate.

Gosh, what end of the stick are some of you picking up?

Don't try to be the smartest person in the room here. Did the batter's action affect F2's ability to retire a runner?

In this situation, yes. Interference all day, everyday. All codes.

And…anybody who is calling the batter who attempts and fails at a drag bunt attempt a runner needs to go back and read the rules.

A batter who swings and misses at a pitch (except an uncaught third strike where he's eligible to run to first base) is still a batter, not a runner.