I think I’m not going to like this … (quiz question)

[The Man in Blue]

I have a hunch that I am going to highly disagree with the answer they are looking for here … 

 

Since the interference has to be intentional, I imagine the ruling they want is to leave the runner at second base (first option).

I disagree with the notion that “golf swinging near the ball” is accidental and NOT intentional.

What say you?

[Velho]

So you answered C and it's wrong? (which is what I would answer btw)

Follow through interference (6-2-d) comes to mind (as a stretch) - which would be R1 back to 1B, so B.

Could one talk themselves into A if R1 had it stolen anyway? So then it's just a 'don't do that'? 

[The Man in Blue]

I haven't submitted it yet.  It's a weekly quiz our state sends out.  I'm running a streak of perfect 5/5 weeks and am struggling with whether I give in and select the BS answer they want, or how it should actually be called.  And by "actually" I mean "I say so."  😋

I suspect they want "A" because it states he "accidentally" hit the ball.  (Sorry, golf swinging the bat near the ball is not "accidentally" hitting it.  Golf swinging the bat near the ball is what is preventing the catcher from grabbing the ball, not hitting it.)

[DevildogUmp]

FWIW - my understanding is that a Batter or B-R can be protected from interference when he accidentally contacts a misplayed pitch. In the OP he is not a B-R, rather a retired player and therefore does not enjoy any protections from being called for interference. Grab both outs.

[grayhawk]

23 minutes ago, DevildogUmp said:

FWIW - my understanding is that a Batter or B-R can be protected from interference when he accidentally contacts a misplayed pitch. In the OP he is not a B-R, rather a retired player and therefore does not enjoy any protections from being called for interference. Grab both outs.

Agreed. Intent not required to call interference by a retired runner. Get two here.

[The Man in Blue]

I was going to let this get some more conversation before I hit submit, but I couldn't stand the suspense.

I warned you.

 

 

 

 

And jumping to 8-4-1d

[UAME]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I disagree with the notion that “golf swinging near the ball” is accidental and NOT intentional.

THIS.

UN-intentional is (among myriad scenarios) the ball bouncing up and off the bat again.  A tantrum (no matter how docile or unruly) is laden with intent.

[grayhawk]

I don't think 5-1-1b applies because the batter had already completed his time at bat, so he is no longer a batter.

[JSam21]

23 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't think 5-1-1b applies because the batter had already completed his time at bat, so he is no longer a batter.

I tend to agree with you here. But... would your opinion change if it was R2 only or the situation started with two outs since they become a runner?

 

[grayhawk]

10 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

I tend to agree with you here. But... would your opinion change if it was R2 only or the situation started with two outs since they become a runner?

 

I'm not current on Fed anymore, but since he's a runner, don't we need intent on a U3K situation? In NCAA, he would be out since he clearly hindered the catcher.

[JSam21]

30 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I'm not current on Fed anymore, but since he's a runner, don't we need intent on a U3K situation? In NCAA, he would be out since he clearly hindered the catcher.

Right... I think that is where they are going with it. Not that I agree with it. 

 

[grayhawk]

10 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Right... I think that is where they are going with it. Not that I agree with it. 

 

But in the original question, he's a retired runner so intent isn't relevant. They should have posted the question with less than 2 strikes to use the rule they cited.

[jimurrayalterego]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Agreed. Intent not required to call interference by a retired runner. Get two here.

Pedantic semantic alert. Intent is not required to call interference by a retired runner unless he is continuing to run the bases normally. But our batter isn't a retired runner. He is a retired batter who is now a teammate.

[MadMax]

Am I remembering incorrectly that NFHS conjoins “follow through interference” with Batter Interference? As in, one call, same penalty? 

NCAA & OBR has FTI → Runner Out if put out, else Runner returns; K on Batter (no further penalty). NFHS is the oddball, right? 

So why isn’t what you’re describing ascribed to that? 

[Velho]

10 minutes ago, MadMax said:

So why isn’t what you’re describing ascribed to that? 

Seems to me the test question has equated the scenario* with the retired batter inadvertently kicking a loose ball.

* the subsequent to the offer at the pitch "golf swing" that inadvertently (but not intentionally) impedes F2

[Velho]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I warned you.

Are we certain which of A or B is the sought answer?

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

Am I remembering incorrectly that NFHS conjoins “follow through interference” with Batter Interference? As in, one call, same penalty? 

NCAA & OBR has FTI → Runner Out if put out, else Runner returns; K on Batter (no further penalty). NFHS is the oddball, right? 

So why isn’t what you’re describing ascribed to that? 

It does.  This isn’t a follow through.  This is Junior Fullride having a tantrum and taking a second swing* at the ball.  Oh, sorry, at the air in the near vicinity of the ball.

* I don’t even like saying “second swing” as this is not a swing or any legal effort to put a ball in play.

 

[MadMax]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

It does.  This isn’t a follow through.

Okay, fair point. 
Is this an official from-NFHS caseplay, or something dreamt up by your state interpreter? 

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, MadMax said:

Okay, fair point. 
Is this an official from-NFHS caseplay, or something dreamt up by your state interpreter? 

It is a weekly quiz sent out from the state director.

[The Man in Blue]

On 4/21/2026 at 11:55 AM, Velho said:

Are we certain which of A or B is the sought answer?

They don’t provide the answer, but provide the rule or guidance on how to get there.  
 

Given the feedback of “Rule 5-1-1b”, I posted that rule and the rule it references (8-4-1d).

[Velho]

9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

They don’t provide the answer, but provide the rule or guidance on how to get there.  
 

Given the feedback of “Rule 5-1-1b”, I posted that rule and the rule it references (8-4-1d).

Maybe I'm being thick... 5-1-1b talks about a ball becoming dead when intentionally hit - which this explicitly is stated as not occurring.

8-4-1d applies to a batter-runner, which we don't have.

So then it's A by omission since the conditions of the ball to be dead aren't met?

[The Man in Blue]

46 minutes ago, Velho said:

Maybe I'm being thick... 5-1-1b talks about a ball becoming dead when intentionally hit - which this explicitly is stated as not occurring.

8-4-1d applies to a batter-runner, which we don't have.

So then it's A by omission since the conditions of the ball to be dead aren't met?

[Thatsnotyou]

Update:

 

“Some umpires pointed out that since we have interference, one of the offensive players involved in the play must be out because of the interference. The batter struck out on the pitch, so he’s already out before the interference happens. R1 is the only other option for an out because of the interference. The umpires who contacted me think this answer is the better option.

 

The batter is out because he struck out, but he interfered with a potential play on R1 at 2nd base. R1 is also out.

 

I agree with their thinking. That’s the intent of our weekly quizzes … Get all of us (including me) thinking about common (and not-so-common) plays and their correct rulings.”

[The Man in Blue]

I just saw that e-mail this morning and was coming to post it.  

I thought it was a rather shallow response.