[BretMan]

Note that the rule prohibits the B/R from interfering with "a dropped third strike", which is the ball itself, not the catcher. Also note that "intent" doesn't appear as any part of the rule.

It is my understanding that for both FED and ASA softball, if the rebounding, uncaught third strike hits the batter that should always be ruled interference.

(And that is just my current "understanding", based on past discussions about this topic and without he benefit of really digging through the books as research for this post. If my understanding is wrong, the rest of this post will be fairly moot!)

The differences mentioned about "the other game", refer to the fact that the baseball rules for this do allow the umpire to take the B/R's "intent" into account and interference is not an automatic call.

While that does sound both fair and logical, and is a ruling I personally prefer, the unfortunate fact is that the softball world does interpret this differently.

The B/R is at the mercy of a possible random bounce. Sometimes, that's just the way the cookie crumbles (or, more fitting, just the way the ball bounces). While it may not seem fair, it is not the only such rule where a runner can be the victim of an unintentional, random bounce of the ball.

If a runner is hit by a batted ball randomly deflected by one fielder and another fielder has opportunity to make a play, the runner is called out.

If a batted ball takes a funny hop and strikes a B/R as she has just exited the batter's box, that is interference.

But there are other plays where the rules protect a runner from interference on these random cue-shoot bounces. On a batted ball, if the ball is deflected and accidentally contacts the runner, and no other fielder has a shot at the ball, that is nothing. Live ball, play on.

I would prefer that the third strike rule aligned with that last common interpretation. On that play, we are allowed to factor the runners intent into the call and make our own judgment. On an uncaught third strike, why not offer the B/R the same benefit of the doubt and allow us to apply our judgment in a similar manner?

But that is not the interpretation we have been handed. As "unfair" or "illogical" as it may seem, interference with the ball on a rebounding third strike is absolute, regardless of the B/R's intent, the catcher's inability to cleanly field the ball or our instincts of what the "right" call should be.

If memory serves, IrishMafia (Mike) submitted a rule change to ASA last year to allow us to judge the B/R's intent on this play and protect her from interference. His proposal was shot down.