2025 NFHS Annual Baseball Interpretations

[johnnyg08]

Without further ado, I bring you the 2025 NFHS Baseball Annual Interpretations! 

 

 

[johnnyg08]

My items of note: the Runner Lane Interference plays. 

[DevildogUmp]

My 2 cents:

Situations 4, 5, 6 - Umpires should not be involved at all. I am not the fashion police. I'm always happy when everyone is wearing the same jersey. (JV callup/someone brought the home jersey instead of the away jersey). Is there even a penalty for these uniform infractions?

Situation 7 - Way to contradict yourself in the interpretation: "1-1-4: A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching (my empahsis) fair ground", than "the other foot entirely in fair territory, not part touching foul ground". The cited rule does not support the interpretation that the entire foot must be in fair territory.

Situation 8 - When it is 30 degrees at first pitch at 5pm, I don't care what the players are wearing to stay warm.

Situation 19 - Is this another example of Fed wanting to be special by specifically going against the interpretation from the other rule sets? My understanding in OBR/NCAA as long as the runner doesn't change his path in reaction to the throw, then this isn't interference at those levels.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, DevildogUmp said:

My 2 cents:

Situations 4, 5, 6 - Umpires should not be involved at all. I am not the fashion police. I'm always happy when everyone is wearing the same jersey. (JV callup/someone brought the home jersey instead of the away jersey). Is there even a penalty for these uniform infractions?

Yep. We're not going there either. Too much to worry about & police. IMO, that's administrative. 

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, DevildogUmp said:

My 2 cents:

Situations 4, 5, 6 - Umpires should not be involved at all. I am not the fashion police. I'm always happy when everyone is wearing the same jersey. (JV callup/someone brought the home jersey instead of the away jersey). Is there even a penalty for these uniform infractions?

 

#6 is (substantially) the same rue in volleyball and basketball (and, I *think*, football).  The number itself must contrast with the uniform, regardless of any outline.  That said,

 

(1) it's a T in basketball and a point (per match) in VB, so not a big penalty.  Don't know what you'd do in baseball.

 

(2) The difficulty is determining what "contrast' means -- dark green on black?  Navy blue on black?  Royal blue on black?

 

[834k3r]

#17 is going to frustrate some in my association that believe that RLI, as it's written, doesn't require a throw.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, 834k3r said:

#17 is going to frustrate some in my association that believe that RLI, as it's written, doesn't require a throw.

Same. I was probably most excited about that one. Tired of the argument. 

[Richvee]

Season starts in a few weeks. I expect a RLV ejection by April 2nd. 

[jimurrayalterego]

37 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

#17 is going to frustrate some in my association that believe that RLI, as it's written, doesn't require a throw.

 

35 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Same. I was probably most excited about that one. Tired of the argument. 

Why would they believe that and what arguments did you have. RLI in any code always required a throw. What is new is the realization that FED always wanted RLI called at the moment of the throw whether the out was made or not.

2010 Interps:

"SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g"

[834k3r]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 

Why would they believe that and what arguments did you have. RLI in any code always required a throw. What is new is the realization that FED always wanted RLI called at the moment of the throw whether the out was made or not.

2010 Interps:

"SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g"

For the guys in my association, they held literally to the use of the word or.

In their take of what 8-4-1g means, the batter is out in either of two situations:

1. "while the ball is being fielded"
2. "thrown to first base"

Regardless, I'm glad the interp is made to clarify for everyone.

[jimurrayalterego]

6 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

For the guys in my association, they held literally to the use of the word or.

In their take of what 8-4-1g means, the batter is out in either of two situations:

1. "while the ball is being fielded"
2. "thrown to first base"

Regardless, I'm glad the interp is made to clarify for everyone.

If they ignored the 2010 interp why would they not ignore the 2025 interp?

[834k3r]

12 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

If they ignored the 2010 interp why would they not ignore the 2025 interp?

I'm guessing many (most? all?) of them weren't around in 2010 to know about the 2010 interp.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 

Why would they believe that and what arguments did you have. RLI in any code always required a throw. What is new is the realization that FED always wanted RLI called at the moment of the throw whether the out was made or not.

2010 Interps:

"SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g"

I know that...but someone, somewhere keeps telling these people that a throw isn't required. 

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

If they ignored the 2010 interp why would they not ignore the 2025 interp?

Maybe. we'll see. 

[johnnyg08]

I can't wait to enforce this one!

SITUATION 18: With R3 on third and R2 on second and one out, B4 hits a small ground ball which dies in front of home plate. R3, getting a good jump on the pitch, slides and touches home plate just as the catcher is picking up the baseball. R2 has not yet touched third when the catcher throws to first base, beating B4 to first. B4, while running to first, is out of the running lane as B4 nears first base. 

RULING: This is running-lane interference by B4. When the catcher makes the throw to first, interference is declared at the moment the throw is made, and B4 is out. Since the interference is at the time of the throw, R3’s score counts as he had touched home before the throw. R2 is returned to second base. 

COMMENT: The running-lane rule exists for several reasons. One, to keep the offense from making it difficult, if not impossible, for a throw to first from somewhere behind the runner, to be made; thus, providing the offense an unearned hit. The second reason, and a very important one, is safety. Coaches will soon learn that if interference is not called when the throw is made, and the call is delayed until the outcome of the play at first is known, then coaches will instruct catchers to throw and hit the batter-runner is ensure the call is made and that other runners do not get to advance during the play. Throwing at runners is a tactic not to be employed in the high school game. (8-4-1g)

[Velho]

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I can't wait to enforce this one!

The half dozen HS ump I have asked about this, whether aware of the interp or once informed, all said the same thing with varying degrees of diplomacy: I'm not calling that without a quality throw.

[jimurrayalterego]

30 minutes ago, Velho said:

The half dozen HS ump I have asked about this, whether aware of the interp or once informed, all said the same thing with varying degrees of diplomacy: I'm not calling that without a quality throw.

I think you missed the point. In OBR and NCAA the run would not score because of the RLI. FED differs in using TOI and the run scores which seems unfair. OBR and NCAA require an intervening play (OBR at the plate, NCAA anywhere) to allow a run to score when RLI then is called. Still a little unfair but not so bad as FED which doesn't use an intervening play.

[Richvee]

Is @johnnyg08 referring to allowing the run the to score, or calling a runner's lane violation when the throw retires the runner? Both are inherently poor (if not outright wrong in the case of calling a violation when the throw retires the runner) interpretations of a rule. I can "sell" the time of throw call to a pissed off defensive manager, but I don't have leg (or rule) to stand on other than this asinine interp to call RLV when throw retires the runner. 

[Velho]

14 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I think you missed the point

Thanks @jimurrayalterego, I certainly did. I myopically used it as a leaping off point that's best aimed at Sit 17.