Teach Tee Something, #3:

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by bossman72

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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.

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).

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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?

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.

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

See FED definition of "Retired Runner" (2-36-3).
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.....

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.