[mick]

Originally posted by Dakota

It is an inference from rule 8-6-18, which says that a retired BR is not guilty of interference if she runs to 1st base as if the U3K rule was in effect. IOW, the defense is required to KNOW that the batter is out and not throw to 1st attempting to retire her again, and if they do so and as a result another runner advances, well, DC. ("Dumb catcher.")
__________________
Tom

Dakota,
Well, yeah.
The defense would know, because, the runner was "declared out". What the ump says... goes.

REF: 2-38-1: "An out is a declaration by the umpire indicating an offensive player has been retired. Each team is entitled to three outs per inning."

Using 8-6-18 as a guideline that the defense should deny themselves the declaration, by umpires, is quite a stretch from not declaring interference on an uncaught third strike.
If we stretch this interpretation to a home plate declaration of out, do we then, for consistancy, go to all the bases and have each fielder question each and every out where they know they pulled their foot, yet received an advantageous call? (ie, Two outs runner on third, throw to first. (“Out!”) First baseman knows foot was slightly pulled, but risking a call reversal rolls ball to the mound,… or fires to Home plate for potential 4th out.)

The Ump made the call. If an allowable protest must be made, so be it.

mick