Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
I don't think so. Since there is no reference as to where the catcher was throwing the ball, but the OP made mention of the running lane, I am assuming the throw was toward 1B. Rule book specifically states that a batter retired on strikes running toward 1B is NOT interference based on doing so to to draw a throw.
Unless there was a possible play on R1, I think you just have a DMC.
|
Before everyone grants carte blanche to the offense and DMC to the defense, let's remember the exception Mike noted "unless there was a possible play on R1". If you believe that the throw toward 1B was to make a play on R1, you most certainly do have interference by a player already out by rule. Intent is not a factor; in fact, the running lane is not a factor. You can certainly apply that the retired batter actively interfered, since she isn't still in the batters box, nor headed toward her bench; anything else would be an active hindrence.
Runner closest to home is out; and, as asked in OP, any other runner returns if not already having advanced to or past the next base at the time of the interference.
Admittedly, I didn't think this through completely in my first reaction response; but the kneejerk response was a general statement of base awards when interference does occur.