Teach Tee Something, #3:
 

Play: R1, R2. Batter swings and misses for strike 3. F2 fails to catch the ball which rebounds in front of the plate. Both runners attempt to advance. BR, thinking he can run to first, takes off and UNintentionally collides with F2, preventing an easy play on R2 at third.

Ruling: ?

Well,
 

I've got nothing.

FED does not contain the OBR language in the comment section under OBR 7.09(j)
nor does FED support "weak interference"

There is a FED case play that talks about B1 unintentionally kicking a ball and the ruling was Nothing but in your OP we are talking about a player.

Ruling:

Since B1 K'd he is out (assumption we had less then 2 outs and 1st was occupied at TOP).

If in the judgement of the umpire the defense could have made a play on another runner then the other runner is called out in this case R2.

I am work so I do not have the FED rule reference handy.

Pete Booth

A couple of clarification points.

1) Any rules code (well, at least FED, NCAA and OBR). The ruling might be different.

2) This isn't an instance of "backswing" (or "follow through" or "weak") interference.

3) Yes, fewer than 2 outs. BR is not entitled to try for first base.

Here's my $.02. I don't have a rulebook handy so no citations. As the umpire, I cannot read the BR's mind, and I don't know if he's taking off to 1B because he thinks he has a right to or because he wants to interfere in some way. I assume by "unintentionally" colliding with F2 you mean he doesn't make it obvious he is trying to interfere. At this point I would kill the play, the batter is already out on stikes so you can't call him out on the interference, so you call R2 out and send R1 back to 1B (assuming that there were no outs to begin with.) I feel this is similar enough to the BR interfering with the catcher making a play on a stealing runner on strike 3. Bottom line, the BR did something he shouldn't have (run towards first).

Here is my rationalization: You've got a fielder attempting to make a play (F2) and a BR already put out interfereing (regardless of intent). You've got to penalize the offending team, so I would call out the runner on which I believe F2 was going to make the play on.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

For OBR
 

I'm going to say I've got nothing. 7.09(e) Comment, I have nothing unless intentional.

Agreed.

7.09e comment means his mere presence of advancing is not to be considered interference. It says it right there... "shall not by that act alone be considered [interfering]".

Yes, his advancement is not interfering. But by hindering or impeding F2s play on another runner after he has just put out is interference, and 7.09e gives us our penalty, "such runner [that the play was going to be made on] shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate."

It is indeed the same rule that is used on the "batter you're out on strikes, runner, you're out on the interference" on the typical steal play strike 3.

The batter is not entitled to run. Say he did this on a dropped strike 2 thinking it was strike 3 and the same play happened.

If R2 was stealing, I would call him out on interference by the batter.

Had this been strike 3 with R2 only (BR entitled to run) then this would be nothing.


In an NCAA game, the ball is dead and all runners return by rule.

While it has been said a batter cannot not disappear, he just can't materialize in certain spots.

Interference is interference. Agreed with this remedy to the solution.

The batter is not entitled to run. Say he did this on a dropped strike 2 thinking it was strike 3 and the same play happened.

If R2 was stealing, I would call him out on interference by the batter.

Bossman: In fed you should call the batter out for the interference and return the runner with less than two outs. 7-3-5-c

Well, in the original play, the batter is not a batter anymore when he strikes out (nor a runner since he is not entitled to run). He is then considered another teammate, so the "batter's" interference rule would not apply.

Reference, please.

I generally agree with those who have this as interference, R2 out, return R1.

I took the question from the NASO yearly quiz. The question made me think for a bit. I'm not sure I would have correctly ruled on the field, at least not initially.

Disagree. He is a batter at the start of the play, same as any other batter who interferes. The ball hitting the catcher's glove doesn't change batter's role after the pitch is delivered. He is still the batter for interpreting BI.

7-11-h AR2 Exception

But after reading that, I just caught the end that says "unless runners are stealing on the pitch," so it's the same in all codes.

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.