2023 Annual NFHS Baseball Interpretations

[johnnyg08]

https://nfhs.org/media/6892968/2023-nfhs-baseball-rules-interpretations-final.pdf

 

2023-nfhs-baseball-rules-interpretations-final.pdf

[johnnyg08]

[JonnyCat]

Situations 12 and 14 are screwy to me. Maybe someone can shed some light on these interps.

In situation 12, the batter runner is awarded 1B when the pitched ball hit his sliding gloves tucked into his back pocket. Do they mean his gloves were tucked completely in his back pocket, or did the ball hit his gloves that were hanging out of his back pocket?

Completely tucked in I understand. But if the gloves were hanging out, and were hit by a pitched ball, wouldn't the gloves not be worn correctly and normally? I've always heard that this situation was a non HBP, and the batter remains at the plate, unless it was ball 4. Am I missing something? I've never called this situation at any level. Is that what FED wants? Seems like 8-1-1d2 applies here.

Situation 14 baffles me, too. The ball is fair in both instances. Why is R3 out over fair territory, and safe over foul ground? I'm reading that R3 is unintentionally struck by the ball in both situations after it rebounds off 3B. Not getting why one situation is out and the other safe. It seems the same to me, live ball. Why the difference?

Thoughts?

[johnnyg08]

43 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

Situations 12 and 14 are screwy to me. Maybe someone can shed some light on these interps.

In situation 12, the batter runner is awarded 1B when the pitched ball hit his sliding gloves tucked into his back pocket. Do they mean his gloves were tucked completely in his back pocket, or did the ball hit his gloves that were hanging out of his back pocket?

Completely tucked in I understand. But if the gloves were hanging out, and were hit by a pitched ball, wouldn't the gloves not be worn correctly and normally? I've always heard that this situation was a non HBP, and the batter remains at the plate, unless it was ball 4. Am I missing something? I've never called this situation at any level. Is that what FED wants? Seems like 8-1-1d2 applies here.

Situation 14 baffles me, too. The ball is fair in both instances. Why is R3 out over fair territory, and safe over foul ground? I'm reading that R3 is unintentionally struck by the ball in both situations after it rebounds off 3B. Not getting why one situation is out and the other safe. It seems the same to me, live ball. Why the difference?

Thoughts?

12:

I don't mind this interpretation. I think it aligns with other rule sets where batting gloves are not considered improperly worn if in the back pockets and struck by a pitch. 

I guess for me, on a pitch thrown that poorly, I'm not bailing out the defense for hitting the sliding glove worn in the BACK pocket of the batter. For that reason, I love this interpretation. 

14: 

I think that R3 is out because maybe they're suggesting that F5 has a play on the batted ball that is in fair territory? 

Could that be the reason? 

[JonnyCat]

34 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

12:

I don't mind this interpretation. I think it aligns with other rule sets where batting gloves are not considered improperly worn if in the back pockets and struck by a pitch. 

I guess for me, on a pitch thrown that poorly, I'm not bailing out the defense for hitting the sliding glove worn in the BACK pocket of the batter. For that reason, I love this interpretation. 

14: 

I think that R3 is out because maybe they're suggesting that F5 has a play on the batted ball that is in fair territory? 

Could that be the reason? 

Good points on #12. I can agree with this. I hadn't thought about how bad the pitch would be if it hit the gloves in the back pocket.

On #14, they reference 8-4-2k. On a strict interpretation, this has the runner out in both situations, I would think. I'm not seeing an exception for a deflected ball off the bag in 8-4-2k.

[johnnyg08]

7 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

On #14, they reference 8-4-2k. On a strict interpretation, this has the runner out in both situations, I would think. I'm not seeing an exception for a deflected ball off the bag in 8-4-2k.

Perhaps that's the reason for the interpretation? I'm definitely not attempting to argue with you on this...just trying to keep the discussion going because you raise a good point. 

[JonnyCat]

43 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps that's the reason for the interpretation? I'm definitely not attempting to argue with you on this...just trying to keep the discussion going because you raise a good point. 

No at all, no argument from me, too. Nor did I get that from you. I appreciate the discussion and banter.

I'm just wondering where FED is coming from on this one. I'm not understanding their interp. I don't see why it would matter if the ball was in fair or foul territory.

IDK, Fed is generally known for their precise and clear interps and test questions! 

[maven]

2 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Situation 14 baffles me, too. The ball is fair in both instances. Why is R3 out over fair territory, and safe over foul ground? I'm reading that R3 is unintentionally struck by the ball in both situations after it rebounds off 3B. Not getting why one situation is out and the other safe. It seems the same to me, live ball. Why the difference?

 

Spirit of the rule. The rationale for INT when a fair batted ball hits a runner is that it prevents the defense from playing on the batted ball. 

When R3 is in foul and hit directly by a batted ball (not a rebounder off 3B), that's a foul ball, not INT. Due to the definition of 'fair ball', a rebounder off 3B is fair. When it hits R3, that contact is not preventing the defense from fielding the batted ball—they had no play. It's not triggering the rationale for INT, so leave it live and play on.

[JonnyCat]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

Spirit of the rule. The rationale for INT when a fair batted ball hits a runner is that it prevents the defense from playing on the batted ball. 

When R3 is in foul and hit directly by a batted ball (not a rebounder off 3B), that's a foul ball, not INT. Due to the definition of 'fair ball', a rebounder off 3B is fair. When it hits R3, that contact is not preventing the defense from fielding the batted ball—they had no play. It's not triggering the rationale for INT, so leave it live and play on.

That's a fair point, but I don't necessarily agree with that rational. If F5 is playing even with the bag and maybe guarding the line, he could still make a play on that ball. Even with the fielder in foul territory, the ball is still live and the fielder could still make a play on it, or not. Same could be said if the ball is in fair territory, F5 could still make a play or not. Depending on how the ball deflects of R3, the rebound could conceivably help or hinder F5 in making a play on the ball.

What would you have in OBR?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Spirit of the rule. The rationale for INT when a fair batted ball hits a runner is that it prevents the defense from playing on the batted ball. 

When R3 is in foul and hit directly by a batted ball (not a rebounder off 3B), that's a foul ball, not INT. Due to the definition of 'fair ball', a rebounder off 3B is fair. When it hits R3, that contact is not preventing the defense from fielding the batted ball—they had no play. It's not triggering the rationale for INT, so leave it live and play on.

I get what you are saying, but I would argue that goes opposite of the spirit of the rule.

The presumption is that a runner standing in foul territory cannot be hit by a fair ball, and that being hit in foul territory makes the ball foul ... this play negates that presumption.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent the runner from interfering with a potential play.  In either instance, the runner is not the thing preventing the fielder from making the play -- the base is.  For that reason, I'm with @JonnyCat that this interp actually goes against the spirit of the rule.  It should be a live, fair ball in both instances (unless the runner does something that would prevent a still viable potential play).

 

I also agree with you on #14, Jonny.  I brought this up when NFHS decided that wearing a wrist band on your belt was a sin that we should deal with.  If that is wearing equipment improperly, then so are batting gloves and sliding mittens sticking out of the back pocket. 

If we are going to allow it, it should be no different than an extended EvoShield on the elbow that sticks out from the elbow an extra 3-4 inches.  We don't award the base on that being hit.  If a loose jersey being worn improperly is hit, we don't award the base on that. 8-1-d(2)

I understand it was a bad pitch, but that is not a criteria for a hit by pitch.

[DevildogUmp]

I want to know when and where 16 happened and if there is video of the crew working that one out.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Situation 1...How can an umpire be expected to know which catcher's masks come with eye shields and which don't? How can an umpire tell whether an eye shield was installed during manufacture and whether it was installed after manufacture?

~Dawg

[wolfe_man]

16 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Situation 1...How can an umpire be expected to know which catcher's masks come with eye shields and which don't? How can an umpire tell whether an eye shield was installed during manufacture and whether it was installed after manufacture?

~Dawg

(At plate meeting, pre-game): "Coach, are all of your players legally and properly equipped?"  If he says yes (I don't accept "I think so"'s or "maybe"'s here), then I have done my requirement to verify things are legal.  If they're not, it is on him.   IF I happen to notice one, then I might ask a catcher where he got it - but I wouldn't go picking boogers here of course.  

Many times you can notice this stuff during warm-ups (good reason to stand outside the fence and watch a little while before you run out there) and address it at the plate meeting if needed.  Honestly, in 8+ years of doing this, I have seen all of one of these eye shields - and it was installed after purchase, not manufacturer.  I am not personally aware of any that currently do it at the manufacturer.

[johnnyg08]

23 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Situation 1...How can an umpire be expected to know which catcher's masks come with eye shields and which don't? How can an umpire tell whether an eye shield was installed during manufacture and whether it was installed after manufacture?

~Dawg

"Legally & properly equipped?" 

Shield is clear. Play on! 

[wolfe_man]

17 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

"Legally & properly equipped?" 

Shield is clear. Play on! 

Preach!

[noumpere]

14 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

 

On #14, they reference 8-4-2k. On a strict interpretation, this has the runner out in both situations, I would think. I'm not seeing an exception for a deflected ball off the bag in 8-4-2k.

Isn't the rule in all codes that a batter is out when hit by a FAIR ball over FAIR territory?

 

This is OBR, but I think the rule is the same; some form of this interp is a common test question.

(7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball
has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other in -
fielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball
is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance,
except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a
runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield
Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Isn't the rule in all codes that a batter is out when hit by a FAIR ball over FAIR territory?

 

This is OBR, but I think the rule is the same; some form of this interp is a common test question.

(7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball
has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other in -
fielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball
is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance,
except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a
runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield
Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

I agree. The only provisions/exceptions I could find, deals with deflections off of players, not bases. 

[834k3r]

18 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

In situation 12, the batter runner is awarded 1B when the pitched ball hit his sliding gloves tucked into his back pocket. Do they mean his gloves were tucked completely in his back pocket, or did the ball hit his gloves that were hanging out of his back pocket?

Completely tucked in I understand. But if the gloves were hanging out, and were hit by a pitched ball, wouldn't the gloves not be worn correctly and normally? I've always heard that this situation was a non HBP, and the batter remains at the plate, unless it was ball 4. Am I missing something? I've never called this situation at any level. Is that what FED wants? Seems like 8-1-1d2 applies here.

I think 12 is talking about the sliding mitts that the kids have now. When they're in the player's back pocket, they're secure, but the top half (ish) is exposed.

[johnnyg08]

18 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

I think 12 is talking about the sliding mitts that the kids have now. When they're in the player's back pocket, they're secure, but the top half (ish) is exposed.

That's 100% what they're referring to and I'm certain @JonnyCatagrees. 

[JSam21]

20 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Good points on #12. I can agree with this. I hadn't thought about how bad the pitch would be if it hit the gloves in the back pocket.

On #14, they reference 8-4-2k. On a strict interpretation, this has the runner out in both situations, I would think. I'm not seeing an exception for a deflected ball off the bag in 8-4-2k.

 

5 hours ago, noumpere said:

Isn't the rule in all codes that a batter is out when hit by a FAIR ball over FAIR territory?

 

This is OBR, but I think the rule is the same; some form of this interp is a common test question.

(7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball
has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other in -
fielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball
is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance,
except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a
runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield
Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

Nailed it... the runner has to be hit with a fair batted ball, in fair territory. 

[JonnyCat]

11 hours ago, noumpere said:

Isn't the rule in all codes that a batter is out when hit by a FAIR ball over FAIR territory?

 

This is OBR, but I think the rule is the same; some form of this interp is a common test question.

(7) He is touched by a fair ball in fair territory before the ball
has gone through, or by, an infielder and no other in -
fielder has a chance to make a play on the ball. The ball
is dead and no runner may score, nor runners advance,
except runners forced to advance. EXCEPTION: If a
runner is touching his base when touched by an Infield
Fly, he is not out, although the batter is out;

Sorry for the late response, long day at the salt mines!

Just to be clear, runner hit with a fair batted ball in foul territory, live ball and play on?

"Touched by a fair ball in fair territory" makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out, it is much clearer now.

Good to know. Had that situation come up in a game, I would have called the runner out. Now I know. UE is a great place to learn. Thanks for all the discussion and info!

[JonnyCat]

9 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

That's 100% what they're referring to and I'm certain @JonnyCatagrees. 

Yes, I do! 

[JSam21]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:46 PM, JonnyCat said:

Sorry for the late response, long day at the salt mines!

Just to be clear, runner hit with a fair batted ball in foul territory, live ball and play on?

"Touched by a fair ball in fair territory" makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out, it is much clearer now.

Good to know. Had that situation come up in a game, I would have called the runner out. Now I know. UE is a great place to learn. Thanks for all the discussion and info!

Yes, this ball remains live. 

[Richvee]

Just noticed sit 11. So a BR hasn’t abandoned until he enters the dugout. Always though it was an appreciable distance toward his bench🤷‍♂️  

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Just noticed sit 11. So a BR hasn’t abandoned until he enters the dugout. Always though it was an appreciable distance toward his bench🤷‍♂️  

Yep. I'm waiting (and been waiting a long time) for my first one on an uncaught third where the batter/runner is on his way back to the dugout but doesn't enter & f2 tosses the ball toward the unoccupied mound and they walk it off and BR goes to first and R3 scores to end the game.