Drop Third Strike, Ump Interference

[TwoBits]

In FED, on umpire's interference with a throw from the catcher, runners can be sent back to their original bases if, in the umpire's judgment, his interference allowed runners to advance.

In the OP's case, this isn't possible since the batter received strike three. There's no rule to cover this case, so I think you have a 10-2-3g situation. I think everyone agrees that the batter should remain at first in the OP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

In the OP's case, this isn't possible since the batter received strike three. There's no rule to cover this case, so I think you have a 10-2-3g situation. I think everyone agrees that the batter should remain at first in the OP.

I absolutely do not agree. Nor do I think that this is umpire interference. And I also disagree that there is no rule to cover the case: there is, namely the dropped third strike rule.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I absolutely do not agree. Nor do I think that this is umpire interference. And I also disagree that there is no rule to cover the case: there is, namely the dropped third strike rule.

Here is the FED book's wording for the part that applies to the OP:

2-21-2: It is umpire interference when he inadvertently moves so as to hinder a catcher's attempt to throw...

No mention that this applies only to throwbacks to the pitcher or only throws to a base. As a matter of fact, the wording makes it seem as it this rule could apply on a fair batted ball that the catcher fields (although I don't see how an umpire could possibly interfere with that play).

That batter in the OP has got to go somewhere, whether it be the dugout or first base. Where would you place him, Mbyron?