Question on dropped thrid strike

[dash_riprock]

The act of running to 1st is not interference.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The act of running to 1st is not interference.

And, more generally, a runner who is out who continues around the bases is not INT.

I will announce that the batter is out, but I won't make a big show of it. Up to the defense to know this, esp. at HS level and up.

[Kevin Finnerty]

How about the guy who's already out on strikes, but runs--clearly inside the foul line--and the unnecessary throw hits him and bounces away, allowing R1 and R2 to advance two bases?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

How about the guy who's already out on strikes, but runs--clearly inside the foul line--and the unnecessary throw hits him and bounces away, allowing R1 and R2 to advance two bases?

Tough luck for the defense.

[Steelers]

I don't believe a runner who has been declared out can continue to run the basepaths.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Tough luck for the defense.

That play was the genesis of my first winning argument as an umpire.

After the coach fired his initial blast, I remember saying, "He's already out Dick; the throw was unnecessary!" (I don't recall his real first name that I used at the time, so I'll just call him by the first name that comes to mind.) That was all I had a chance to say, and the guy went off again. He was beside himself. It was a real $hitstorm, but I was green, and I had my mentor on my shoulder whispering at me to keep the coach in the game.

[pastordoug]

"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...

[ozzy6900]

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!

[BretMan]

The three-foot running lane specifically applies to a batter-runner. A batter who has been retired does not meet the definition of a batter-runner.

To be guilty of interference, an offensive player must to something that prevents the defense from making a play. Since this offensive player has already been retired, a throw to first base is moot- he can't be "retired" a second time. There is no play to be made upon this offensive player, thus no interference.

The act of continuing to run the bases after being put out isn't in and of itself inerference. Being hit by a throw that wasn't part of a legitimate play is not interference. A retired batter or runner might be guilty of interference by means of some other action that actually hinders a play, like purposely contacting a thrown ball or crashing into a fielder trying to make a catch or a throw. But until that happens- no blood, no foul.

[johnnyg08]

Using what rule?

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by JJ

I've still got interference.

JJ

Who will you call out? Where will you place runners?

[Forest Ump]

We don't coach. It's incumbent upon the defense to know the situation. They have to know when to throw to first. They have to know when the infield fly is in effect. They have to know how to properly appeal. etc. If they don't know how to play the game, I'm not going to reward them with outs that are not in the rule book.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

We don't coach. It's incumbent upon the defense to know the situation. They have to know when to throw to first. They have to know when the infield fly is in effect. They have to know how to properly appeal. etc. If they don't know how to play the game, I'm not going to reward them with outs that are not in the rule book.

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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JJ

I've still got interference.

JJ

What is the retired runner interfering with?