What is the retired runner interfering with?

I agree 100% that both offense and defense are responsible for knowing the situation, but a strong verbal announcement of an Infield Fly is vital, especially involving borderline situations, as the IF rule is subject to umpire judgment, unlike the uncaught third strike rule, which is cut and dried.

"Runners on base do not have to disappear after being called out".

Unless those runners commit an "act” that is used to "confuse" the defense attempting to make a play...

While that act might not be as prevalent at HS level, it is a possibility.
Just my opinion...

To all those claiming there is interference on the OP:

A retired runner still running the bases not interference in any rule book! IF the defence doesn't know the runner is out and throws the ball away, tough luck on the defence.

Now if said runner were to try to block off a catch or a throw, that would be interference..... but simply running the bases is not.

Those who do not understand this and still insist that the runner in the OP committed interference, need to go back to school!

On a dropped 3rd strike when the batter can not attempt I always give a 2nd emphatic out call if he starts to run. Catcher who throws after that is just not well trained.

QUOTE: "all those claiming there is interference on the OP"

Who is claiming this? I think the questions brought up are worth an answer.

"Those who do not understand this and still insist that the runner in the OP committed interference, need to go back to school!" [/QUOTE]

We should ALL continue in school since there is always something we can learn. The rule is very clear until you begin adding situations as in this post.

I hope this post never discourages others from asking question because of being belittled by some.....

Don't count on it. If you want that kind of site, go to Umpie-empire.com. There, you will get honest, straight answers with none of the uslessness accompanying it.

As to the OP, I've got nothing. Defense screw up and looking for the umpire to fix it. Their fault, not the offense's. Oh well, now I have an R3.

It's true that a runner who continues to run after being put out "shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders."

I would apply "not by that act alone" to mistaken running after an uncaught third strike, to routine rounding of 1B after a fly ball is caught, to continuing to run toward 2B after a force out, and to other cases in which the runner can't be expected to disappear or stop dead. But I wouldn't interpret those words to mean that the runner has license to deliberately confuse the fielders.

In the OP, no interference. But:

Bases loaded, 1 out. Strike 3 gets by F2 and caroms off the backstop toward the 1B dugout. Umpire announces, "Batter's out!" but the BR runs anyway. As F2 chases down the ball, R3 scores, R2 scores, and R1 takes a big turn around 3B. The BR rounds 2B and continues toward 3B. As R1 returns to 3B, the BR stands halfway between 2B and 3B trying to get the defense to play on him. The defense then plays on the BR, who gets himself caught in a rundown while R1 looks for an opportunity to score.

I think that qualifies as INT on the BR, even though you could argue that the defense should know that he was already out.

Who would? A retired runner who does something besides continue around the next base obviously does not fall under "not by that act alone."

Who would? A retired runner who does something besides continue around the next base obviously does not fall under "not by that act alone."

I wouldn't. I'm just saying that getting into a rundown isn't "continuing to run the bases." A previous post named cited INT with a throw; I'm just saying it doesn't have to rise to that level.

The only reason he's in a rundown is because the defense is playing on him. I'm not going to reward stupidity.

Whose stupidity are you not rewarding -- the retired batter's or the defense's? In the rundown situation, I'm giving the defense the benefit.

What did they do to deserve that? They made a play (or thought so) on a runner who was out and, by rule, not interfering. Also by rule, a run-down is an act of the defense. Think about it.

I think that by committing the overt act of decoying the defense (getting in a rundown), the "runner" is in fact interfering—by rule. He is doing more than committing the "act alone" of legitimately "continu[ing] to advance." He is intentionally attempting to confuse the fielders.

"Continues to advance" and "runs the bases" aren't necessarily the same thing.

If I have time today, I'll try to find something on this in the J/R or Evans or PBUC. I hope somebody beats me to it.

The defense created the run-down, not the runner.
See "PICKLE" in Section 2 (Definition of Terms).