Question on dropped thrid strike
 

This has been bugging me since las season and I'd like your thoughts. In a senior BB game, less tha 2 out, runner on first. Catcher drops the thrid strike and BR runs to first. He cannot advance in this situation, but he runs, the pitcher overthrows the firstbaseman and the runner on first advances to third. I call the batter out and allow the runner to stay at third because the ball was not dead and he advanced because of the stupidity of the defensive team. Between you and me, was I right?

You're right, but I am always yelling as loudly as possible..."Batter's out! Batter's out!" Still their bad, either way, if they throw....they should know the game play situation as well as the ump.....

I am new to this forum, have been on to see some of the unique situations that occur during some ball games. I have umped baseball at several levels over the past 25 years. I would say your call was correct. Though some may claim the BR ran to first in order to confuse the defense. But it can also be said the defense must also be aware of the situation. Very curious what some of the other umps on this forum say about the play

Steelers

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.

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.

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

Therefore your "belief" is incorrect.

R2
Less then two outs
Batter hits fly ball to F8
F8 clearly makes the catch for the out
BR continues to run all the way to second base
F8 confused throws the ball to F4 but the throw goes awry
R2 then takes off successfully gets around 3rd and heads for home and beats a throw as Br
R runs towards third.

All completely legal.

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

I agree with that play and also agree a runner declared out can't just dissapear. But on the same play...
1) BR is out on a clearly caught ball,
2)F8 throws to F4 and there is the slightest bit of contact with BR (who is clearly beeen called out
3)now we do have interference

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.

Using what rule?

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

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.

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.

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).

Your joking right?

Your going to let that batter go that far without having announced at least 4-5 more times that the batter is out?

At that point the only thing it quailifies for is stupidity, on the batter, the defense and the umpire. I can only see this happening in one of my T-Ball games. If I should ever happen to do one!!!!!

Come on now?? You have to be kidding?

I'm not saying that the play is likely. Many of the "what ifs" posed on this board are highly unlikely. I was just trying to create a situation in which the "out" runner decoyed the defense well after he had been called out, continuing to do more than merely advance, but to actively act as a decoy. How about a play in which R1 is forced out at 2B but continues around the bases and decoys the defense into throwing home?

Incidentally, I have had uncaught-third-strike plays in which I've yelled, "Batter's out" several times to no avail. The defense continued to play on the "runner," and the "runner" continued to try to avoid being "put out." Not T-ball, either.

Incidentally, what specific code are we talking about? The one that includes pickle in its definitions.

By itself, no INT.


That was a joke. See "Run-Down" instead of pickle. OBR & NCAA

Unless things have changed since the 2006 BRD, a retired runner can intentionally decoy the defense in Fed, but not in OBR or NCAA.

One play as example:

R1. B1 grounds to F6. R1 is forced out at 2B, but the relay throw is not in time at 1B. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between 2B and 3B and is tagged "out" again as B1 takes 2B. Ruling: In FED, B1 remains at 2B. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out for R1's INT.

Section 274 of the 2006 BRD also notes, "NCAA: A retired runner my not continue to advance if such action 'hinders or impedes' the defense."

That's the point. The defense isn't hindered or impeded by a run-down THEY created.

I don't understand your point. In the BRD example, a retired runner gets into a rundown and in OBR and NCAA is considered to have committed INT because the defense played on him and a following runner advanced.

For a minute, forget the rundown and the question of who initiated the rundown, if such a thing can be determined. Here's another example from the BRD:

R1. B1 hits to right field, where the ball is caught for an out. FED only. R1 holds at 1B, but B1 passes him and makes a dash for 2B. F9, confused, fires to 2B, but the ball is wildly overthrown and goes into DBT behind 3B. Ruling: R1 is awarded 3B.

Note that this ruling applies to FED only. It does not apply to OBR and NCAA, where a retired runner does not have license to continue to run the bases in order to confuse the defense.

If you have a BRD, read the entire section. It's interesting.

What is BRD?

The Baseball Rules Differences is written and compiled by Carl Childress. It is "the only complete reference to all differences among National Federation, NCAA, NAIA, and Official [baseball] Rules." (Carl teaches English; note that he correctly uses among and not between.)

Carl revises and updates the BRD annually.

Even if you umpire only one of the codes, it's an extremely helpful book. For example, I couldn't find anything in the J/R or Evans about what the limits are on a retired runner who continues to run. But the BRD had a useful and informative section.

You can purchase the BRD from officiating.com

You always could in the past. However, this year it doesn't seem to be among the publications offered. I haven't been able to find it on any of the other outlets where it was previously offered.

Does anyone know what's up with the 2010 edition?

OBR Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

OBR Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Yes, I'm well aware of that rule and have been for a long time. When I used the term "by that act alone" in a previous post, I didn't make it up off the top of my head.

But in OBR and NCAA (not Fed), a retired runner cannot deliberately (umpire's judgment) decoy the defense into playing upon him. Trying to draw a throw by streaking for the next base after his fly ball is caught, or intentionally getting trapped in a rundown, do not qualify as merely continuing to advance. Such acts are not "protected" under that wording. They qualify as INT just as much as sticking out a hand to block a throw. That's all I'm saying.

No, but we had a couple people who ordered their 2009 in Feb 2009 and didn't get it until August 2009. Just beware.

In this unlikely situation, if I have the dish, and BR gets in a rundown between 2b and 3b, the BR is hearing challenged, and the defense is mentally challenged.

So whose stupidity do you award? If I'm constantly calling someone out and he continues to run the bases, it won't take much for me to call INT if he causes a play to be made on him.

That is not a rule.

What does Carl use as his source for the NCAA and OBR rulings on this play (and the other you cited)?

That is not a rule.

See the BRD for official interpretations for both NCAA and OBR.

See also the case plays in which INT is not called when a retired runner continues to run. None of these case plays involve deliberate decoying.

What does Carl use as his source for the NCAA and OBR rulings on this play (and the other you cited)?

For the "FED only" play in which the retired BR streaks to 2B and draws a wild throw, FED 8.3.3f: "A runner or BR is not guilty of INT if he continues to advance, even when he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases." Note: Carl continues, "B1 is congratulated for [acting as] a legal decoy. . . ." He also notes, "You'll have to eject somebody."

Immediately following this "FED only" example, Carl cites the NCAA rules (5-3 Pen 2 and 5-3 AR 1) and "OFF INTERP" Thurston, which emphasizes intentional. For OBR, Carl says, "Same as NCAA" and cites the definition and the familiar rule, with "OFF INTERP" Fitzpatrick as well as "email to cc."

The rundown play and two others follow, with distinctions—based on the retired runner's intent—made between FED and NCAA/OBR.

If you have a 2006 BRD, it's 274, pp. 167-168.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Thanks for keeping it cordial.

You, too! Much appreciated.

Thanks for the jinx.

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

So...if it qualifies as interference...how do you penalize it? Is it an immediately dead ball or delayed dead? Since the BR is already out, do you call R1 out for the interference? Are you scoring R2 & R3 or are you making them return to the base occupied at the TOI (which in this case appears to be HP)?