Question on dropped thrid strike

[dash_riprock]

NCAA and OBR rules are the same: It is interference if a runner who has been put out "hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner..." Both codes also state that continuing to run the bases, by itself, is not INT.

Therefore, in order for INT to occur, we need two things:

1) The retired runner must do something to interfere other than continue to run the bases.

2) The defense must be attempting a play on another runner (i.e., not the retired runner), and the retired runner must hinder or impede that play.

There is nothing in the rule about intent, although intentional interference is always against the rules.

I don't have a BRD, and I have thus far been unable to find an NCAA interp. on this issue. It is not addressed in either J/R or MLBUM, and maybe that's because they don't believe there is a need for an interpretation or clarification. The rule is pretty clear to me.

[greymule]

Nothing in the PBUC or Evans, either. The only authoritative source that delves into this is the BRD, which is pretty clear that when a retired runner intentionally decoys the defense into playing on him and (1) another runner advances, or (2) the defense gives up a play on another runner, the retired runner has committed INT in OBR and NCAA but not in Fed.

In the rundown play, the BRD does recommend that "if B1 remains at 1B during the 'rundown,' do not assess a penalty.

The BRD also emphasizes intent on the part of the runner and backs that up with official interpretations.

The BRD is not perfect. Some MLB umpire might disagree with Fitzpatrick. It's happened before. But I'm going with the BRD interpretation until I'm persuaded otherwise.

It's clear to me that the disagreement lies in the interpretation of the "by that act alone." I take it to mean simply continuing in the basepaths, as opposed to committing intentional acts designed to confuse the defense. To me, intentionally decoying the defense is something other than "continuing to advance."

So we're at a dead end unless somebody can supply an official case play or ruling.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

So we're at a dead end unless somebody can supply an official case play or ruling.

Yep. Good discussion though. Thanks for keeping it cordial. More whiskey for your horses!

[Steelers]

Hey, guys sorry for opening up this can of worms on one of the original posts. Hopefully none of these situations will ever come up. I have read 7.09(e) many times but never rally thought to much about the rule. I stand corrected about a runner continuing to run the basepaths after being called out. I have never seen any runner continue before and hope I never do

[jicecone]

I read BRD 2009 last night and it pretty much states what greymule has said. I will look closer tonight.

[greymule]

Thanks for keeping it cordial.

You, too! Much appreciated.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Steelers

Hopefully none of these situations will ever come up.

Thanks for the jinx.

[johnnyg08]

I was reading 7.09 last night for something else and I did see a comment in there about the type of situation you're describing...on paper, it does seem pretty cut and dry. Too bad paper and field are two different things sometimes