Let's use the FED book:

8-1-1 "The batter becomes a runner ... when:"
(b) He is charged with a 3rd strike.

So it seems to me that once strike 3 is called, he is no longer a batter, but a runner, so there is no way you can call batter's interference.

Note also that the ARs apply to "deflecting the ball" not "interfereing with the catcher"

In FED parlance, he's now a "retired runner". I think the same concept can apply (at least in this play) to the other codes.

From the OP

First base was occupied at TOP so when B1 K'd he is now a retired runner. His status as a batter ended when he K'd.

Therefore, FED rule 7 does NOT apply. You need to go to FED rule 8 which others gave you.

Pete Booth

Indeed, and retired runners get less leeway when it comes to INT than batters or batter-runners.

I understand, and I agree with you...but as others have said here, he is a retired runner, and he can still interfere....What do you have on a batter who swings hard and misses for strike three, (No longer a batter?) and stumbles into the path of F2 who is trying to throw out R1 at second?

You have interference by a retired runner. R1 is called out for the actions of his teammate preventing the out at 2nd. All runners return to TOI bases.

A batter that did not intentionally interfer, but did interfer. You can also get another out (7-3-5 penalty) if the was a resonable chance the the catcher could have also retired the runner.

What do I have? 2 outs on the play and possibly the end of a 1/2 inning.

bob,

Can a batter who is not entitled to run become a runner? I would still probably have batter's interference and enforce as such. FED should possibly have a case play concerning this situation or give some sort of definate ruling.

A weird play to be sure.

Well I know you used FED, but you are telling me that if he tackles F2 it can't be INT because he's a runner?

In OBR, he is hindering and impeding not by his advancement but by getting in the way with F2. (2.00 INT, 7.09 e). If he runs to first and the catcher gets confused and chases him, that is what 7.09e comment is covering. But if he interferes with or obstructs F2's play on another runner, yeah, we have double play, no doubt.

I really don't see the issue here.

See FED definition of "Retired Runner" (2-36-3). Also note that a batter becomes a runner when the third strike is charged, and that he's a retired runner "immediately after" (that's 8-1 something, and I know it says the thrid strike is "caught", but I'd apply it when it's not caught but the batter can't advance).

No. He's saying that you need to look in the "Runner" rules to get the ruling, not in the "BAtter" rules. You are in (violent?) agreement.

In the "Batting Rules," 7-3-5, it says, "If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire's judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out. (8-4-2g)." This rule (8-4-2g) found in the "Runner Rules," says a "runner including the batter-runner interferes in any way and prevents a double play anywhere, two shall be declared out..." There, I think the rule is found in both....a lot of semantics, really, but whether he's the batter-runner, or retired runner, or runner, he's out for interference, to which I think we all agree.....

Oh, so he's saying it can't be BI. Well this is just a matter of semantics then. As long as you get 2 outs on this play, call it whatever you want folks. :)

I don't have a FED book, but the OBR book has two rules.

The batter is out if... The third strike is not caught... if first base is occupied when less than two are out.

The batter becomes a runner if... The third strike is not caught... provided first is unocupied or first is ocupied when two are out.

In the case here, the batter never becomes a runner if he is out on the third strike (first is occupied when two are out). I don't know why FED would say any different? Does he become a runner when he strikes out?

We have a case of a retired batter attempting to run bases, not knowing he was out. I have seen many college games where the batter would run to first on a dropped third strike, only to be told by the first base umpire that he was out (First was occupied). Since I don't have the FED book, I don't know what the ruling is on accidental interference.

1) Because it's FED

2) Yes, as explained in previous posts.