NFHS RLI

[jimurrayalterego]

My state has complied with Hopkins interp of RLI but some of you have used "if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" in 8-4-1-g-1 to justify not complying with the interp. Your 2026 book does not have that criteria any more. RLI as Hopkins wants it called is now by rule.

[BigBlue4u]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

My state has complied with Hopkins interp of RLI but some of you have used "if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw" in 8-4-1-g-1 to justify not complying with the interp. Your 2026 book does not have that criteria any more. RLI as Hopkins wants it called is now by rule.

I'm not sure I follow this.  Why was 8-4-1-g-1 taken out of the book? Also, what does it mean "Hopkins wants it called is now by rule?"

Thanks.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, BigBlue4u said:

I'm not sure I follow this.  Why was 8-4-1-g-1 taken out of the book? Also, what does it mean "Hopkins wants it called is now by rule?"

Thanks.

8-4-1-g-1 is still in the book. They took out the quoted phrase which allowed you to ignore the RLI. They left in the criteria of avoiding a fielder.

[UMP45]

14 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I'm not sure I follow this.  Why was 8-4-1-g-1 taken out of the book? Also, what does it mean "Hopkins wants it called is now by rule?"

Thanks.

Hopkins is the rules editor. He decides rules interpretations and applications.

[The Man in Blue]

On 1/15/2026 at 5:18 PM, BigBlue4u said:

Also, what does it mean "Hopkins wants it called is now by rule?"

Thanks.

People like me who are staunch advocates that interpretations should not override rules as written.  This play was a dominant case the last few years.  Hopkins issued an "interpretation by memo" which was not in any published source and was the exact opposite of what the written rule said.

What happened to "Rules are hard to change and it can take years, so that is why we govern by decree"?

See, rules are not hard to change, and it can be done when the right person wants it done.

[SeeingEyeDog]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

People like me who are staunch advocates that interpretations should not override rules as written...

Mannnnnnnnnn, this is the most transcendentally cosmic thing I have ever read on this forum...

This so crystalizes everything that is wrong with the relationship between the NFHS and the umpires, and yes...even the coaches and players.

I'm sure many case books have these flaws and not just the NFHS baseball case books, however the fact is, a case book...ANY case book is supposed to be a resource for the official/umpire to take the printed word in the RULE book and learn how to apply the abstract rule onto the field of play. The case book should be a direct reflection of the rule book. There should never be circumstances where there is information governing play that exists only in the case book.

As @The Man in Blue states here and I am paraphrasing...if a governing body issues a case book that diverts from any rule in any way, that should be a flag that they need to first change the rule. Or, take a step back, and really consider if you should be putting information in the case book that does not connect to the rule book and edit that prior to publication.

All of us frequently engage with coaches after plays sometimes with the phrase, "Coach, by rule..."

Does NFHS really want us saying, "Coach, by the case book..."? when we have to apply something that only exists in the case book on the play in question?

Again, really great topic here. Thank you for this thread.

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

@SeeingEyeDog,

 

Now, let's talk about NFHS's asinine blocking application in the case book . . . 

OR, can I point out the next problems with the logic being applied here?

Hopkins has asserted this is a safety rule, citing a desire to NOT see catchers thumping runners in the back.  However, the interpretation from last year (https://nfhs.org/resources/sports/baseball-rules-interpretations-2025 -- #17) states it is NOT to be called if there is no throw.  If this is a safety rule to prevent runners from getting thumped, why are we requiring the throw?

Moreso, the rule states "while the ball is being fielded" . . . thus we should not require the throw to get the call.

(More fun . . . NOTHING states that the fielding or throwing are only applicable to the catcher.  So, we had better be grabbing this call on a ground ball deep to the left side of the infield.)

Here is how the rule appeared up until the 2026 publication.  The highlighted portion is what was removed.

 

Curious that the 2026 publication does not call this out, but simply states changes to 8-4-1-g are "associated" with the adoption of the double-first base.

It's almost as if Hopkins and the book authors still are not on the same page.

 

Anyway . . . about that blocking thing . . . 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Bonus added fun: The 2026 Baseball Preseason Guide from NFHS has NO reference to changes to 8-4-1-g, not even in the litany of changes for the double-first base.

It lists enforcing 8-4-1-g as a Point of Emphasis (page 4), but mentions no change.

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Bonus added fun: The 2026 Baseball Preseason Guide from NFHS has NO reference to changes to 8-4-1-g, not even in the litany of changes for the double-first base.

It lists enforcing 8-4-1-g as a Point of Emphasis (page 4), but mentions no change.

I and others posted all your points when the interp first came out. Just call it like they want, or not in your neck of the woods. Once it was made clear in my neck of the woods there were no complaints. And I don't like calling it that way as I also don't like balking F1 going to the mouth on the rubber with a runner/s on.

[The Man in Blue]

2 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I and others posted all your points when the interp first came out. Just call it like they want, or not in your neck of the woods. Once it was made clear in my neck of the woods there were no complaints. And I don't like calling it that way as I also don't like balking F1 going to the mouth on the rubber with a runner/s on.

 

I appreciate that, @jimurrayalterego . . . but my point is that they still don't know how they want it, as we are still getting conflicting information.

[jimurrayalterego]

57 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I appreciate that, @jimurrayalterego . . . but my point is that they still don't know how they want it, as we are still getting conflicting information.

It's not conflicting but it is troubling that they unslipped it out. But should we ask our amateur rules hechos to explain any changes in their interps? Randy Bruns just this year did an about face without explanation of his previous ruling. MLB explains sht.  

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Moreso, the rule states "while the ball is being fielded" . . . thus we should not require the throw to get the call.

 

 

It's "fielded to first base" which, while weirdly phrased in today's english, means "interfere with the fielder at first".  It does NOT mean "while a fielder is attempting to glove a batted ball"

 

This wording is substantially similar to OBR and JEA has a good explanation.

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, noumpere said:

It's "fielded to first base" which, while weirdly phrased in today's english, means "interfere with the fielder at first".  It does NOT mean "while a fielder is attempting to glove a batted ball"

 

This wording is substantially similar to OBR and JEA has a good explanation.

I will apologize now for my upcoming sarcasm.  It's not personal, it's me.

Wow, those are some grammatical and mental gymnastics.  That is not what it says, even in "today's english" (which is a kind euphemism for making SH*# up because it suits me).  Here it is again, screen shot directly from the 2020 Kindle version of the book:

On 1/19/2026 at 7:42 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

The change in 2026 was removing the highlighted section, so the wording we are discussing is the same.

So, here are the conflicting pieces: 

First conflict: Hopkins stated the purpose of this is to prevent catchers from thumping runners in the back, so we should be killing the play.  Then he issues an interpretation that requires the throw to be made (see conflict #2 below).  I was an a-hole catcher.  If you came to me with this while I was playing, I would be thumping the runner because you are requiring me to throw.  I wouldn't want to risk throwing it away and hoping you make the call.

Second conflict: The interpretation from Hopkins last year required a throw.  The rule does not. 

The rule states the runner is out if he is out of the lane when a ball is being fielded.  The rule states the runner is out if he is out of the lane during a throw to first base.  There is no designation of who has to be fielding or where the throw is coming from.  There is no exception now.  Previously, the exception covered anything that did not interfere.

 

  

[The Man in Blue]

I started to say: . . . and no, the OBR verbiage is not similar.  OBR requires the determination to be made after a throw to first base is released.

Then I looked up one paragraph and I see where you got the verbiage of "fielding to first base."  

 

OBR still requires actual interference to occur, regardless.  NFHS is telling us to kill it with the running infraction, not to wait to see what happens (except that Hopkins' conflicting direction says we need the throw that he doesn't want catchers to make).

[NorthTexasUmp]

On 1/19/2026 at 8:04 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Bonus added fun: The 2026 Baseball Preseason Guide from NFHS has NO reference to changes to 8-4-1-g, not even in the litany of changes for the double-first base.

It lists enforcing 8-4-1-g as a Point of Emphasis (page 4), but mentions no change.

Don't shoot the messenger. They called an "Editorial Change".

[Richvee]

On 1/19/2026 at 8:42 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Curious that the 2026 publication does not call this out, but simply states changes to 8-4-1-g are "associated" with the adoption of the double-first base.

 

It's almost like they took a loophole through the back door to change a rule. Calling it an editorial change in association with the double first base is a cop out. It's more like "we need to change this rule to match our interpretation. Let's just call it an editorial change and be done with it"

[Velho]

5 hours ago, Richvee said:

It's almost like they took a loophole through the back door to change a rule.

 

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, NorthTexasUmp said:

Don't shoot the messenger. They called an "Editorial Change".

I was actually looking for those specific words, because I expected that would be their window.  I could never even find that.  Where did you see that terminology used?  (I probably overlooked it.)

[JSam21]

On 1/20/2026 at 8:17 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I started to say: . . . and no, the OBR verbiage is not similar.  OBR requires the determination to be made after a throw to first base is released.

Then I looked up one paragraph and I see where you got the verbiage of "fielding to first base."  

 

OBR still requires actual interference to occur, regardless.  NFHS is telling us to kill it with the running infraction, not to wait to see what happens (except that Hopkins' conflicting direction says we need the throw that he doesn't want catchers to make).

It is that they don't want the catchers to make a throw, they don't want catchers, or other defenders around the plate area, to be throwing AT the runner who is outside of the lane in order to draw a call. 

 

 

On 1/20/2026 at 8:09 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I will apologize now for my upcoming sarcasm.  It's not personal, it's me.

Wow, those are some grammatical and mental gymnastics.  That is not what it says, even in "today's english" (which is a kind euphemism for making SH*# up because it suits me).  Here it is again, screen shot directly from the 2020 Kindle version of the book:

 

The change in 2026 was removing the highlighted section, so the wording we are discussing is the same.

So, here are the conflicting pieces: 

First conflict: Hopkins stated the purpose of this is to prevent catchers from thumping runners in the back, so we should be killing the play.  Then he issues an interpretation that requires the throw to be made (see conflict #2 below).  I was an a-hole catcher.  If you came to me with this while I was playing, I would be thumping the runner because you are requiring me to throw.  I wouldn't want to risk throwing it away and hoping you make the call.

Second conflict: The interpretation from Hopkins last year required a throw.  The rule does not. 

The rule states the runner is out if he is out of the lane when a ball is being fielded.  The rule states the runner is out if he is out of the lane during a throw to first base.  There is no designation of who has to be fielding or where the throw is coming from.  There is no exception now.  Previously, the exception covered anything that did not interfere.

 

  

I know you are going to rule book lawyer this to death, but we all know that the THROW itself is only protected if it originates from behind the batter runner, aka the plate area. The fielding of a throw to first base is protected regardless of where it originates from. The fielding of the throw would still require that there be hinderance by the batter-runner in order to make a call. 

There are two separate aspects being protected by the rule... the throw and the fielding of the throw. 

[Velho]

So glad LL has, in practice if not by rule, all but killed RLI during the regular season

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Velho said:

So glad LL has, in practice if not by rule, all but killed RLI during the regular season

How did they do that?

 

[Velho]

19 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

2 hours ago, Velho said:

So glad LL has, in practice if not by rule, all but killed RLI during the regular season

How did they do that?

Two factors:

- LL uses the OBR standard requiring a quality throw

- RLI can only be called if the runners lane is chalked

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Two factors:

- LL uses the OBR standard requiring a quality throw

- RLI can only be called if the runners lane is chalked

You can't call an obvious infraction on the fair side of the line?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You can't call an obvious infraction on the fair side of the line?

Nope. Not as I understood from the last discussion.

Hoping it was miscommunicated / I misunderstood. I've got a note in for a cite and clarification.

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, JSam21 said:

It is that they don't want the catchers to make a throw, they don't want catchers, or other defenders around the plate area, to be throwing AT the runner who is outside of the lane in order to draw a call. 

Uh huh.  So how do we prevent catchers from thumping runners?  By requiring them to throw when we know the runner is illegal.  We are telling them, "I know you were trying to be safe by not making that throw, but I have to reward the runner then."  Makes total sense . . . not.

14 hours ago, JSam21 said:

I know you are going to rule book lawyer this to death, but we all know that the THROW itself is only protected if it originates from behind the batter runner, aka the plate area. 

Correct.  HOW do "we all know" that?

14 hours ago, JSam21 said:

The fielding of a throw to first base is protected regardless of where it originates from. The fielding of the throw would still require that there be hinderance by the batter-runner in order to make a call. 

There are two separate aspects being protected by the rule... the throw and the fielding of the throw. 

Your wording makes sense, and I would agree with it, but it is not what either rule says.  I agree with you that the old application would seem to be a really poorly worded of fielding a throw to first base.  However, the current direction from NFHS removes that aspect (we no longer consider what happens at first base).

OBR says "fielding the ball to first base" which makes no sense.

NFHS says "when the ball is being fielded or thrown to first base".  I agree with you there are two separate acts that trigger the required timing of looking at the violation.  We are disagreeing on what those two incidents are though.  I agree, what you are asserting MAKES SENSE.  What is actually written and communicated does not.  What is written states: : (1) when the ball is being fielded, and (2) when the ball is being thrown to first base.  There is no longer any consideration of the fielding of the throw because the play is dead before that occurs.