What if...

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You have to wait for the play to finish between 2 and 3. If the initial throw retires the runner, then items 3-5 are ignored.

So R1 gets to keep second if F2's throw retires R2, and the interference is ignored (since R1 is tagged out, and B1 struck out)?

[UmpJM]

Suudy,

That is correct. If the F2's initial attempt to retire a runner is successful despite the interference, the interference is disregarded and the play stands. (Regardless of whether or not the batter struck out.)

JM

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

That is correct. If the F2's initial attempt to retire a runner is successful despite the interference, the interference is disregarded and the play stands. (Regardless of whether or not the batter struck out.)

Does it matter with regard to uncaught third strikes?

For example, no outs, 1-2 count, B1 swings and misses, but F2 drops the ball. B1 pushes F2 and starts to run toward first. R2 takes off for third. F2 recovers and throws 1) to first in time to put out the batter-runner, 2) to first and over the head of F3, 3) to third in time to tag R1, 4) to third but not in time to tag R1.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Does it matter with regard to uncaught third strikes?

For example, no outs, 1-2 count, B1 swings and misses, but F2 drops the ball. B1 pushes F2 and starts to run toward first. R2 takes off for third. F2 recovers and throws 1) to first in time to put out the batter-runner, 2) to first and over the head of F3, 3) to third in time to tag R1, 4) to third but not in time to tag R1.

That's not batter interference, but rather interference by the batter-runner. The ball is dead immediately, BR out, other runners return. 8-4-1a

[UmpJM]

suudy,

When the batter becomes a runner on the pitch, he is no longer a batter but a batter-runner. That might seem like a trivial distinction, but it's actually important.

Since he is no longer a batter, he is no longer constrained by the batter interference rules. So, yes, it matters quite a bit.

Now, if the batter were to push the F2 (which to me implies intent), he's out on runner interference, I'm killing the play immediately, and it is certainly conceivable that I would call the runner out as well (due to his teammate's interference) if I felt a double play was likely or possible.

Conversely, if the BR just took off for 1B and the F2 just went after the loose ball and inadvertently "bumped" one another, then I've got "nothing" (a tangle/untangle in umpire parlance). If the F2 gets the ball and airmails it over the F3's head, and the runner is short of or within the running lane, I've still got nothing. If he's past halfway and outside the running lane (and in the "flight path" of the throw), I've likely got the BR out on runner's lane interference. The ball is immediately dead and runner's return to their TOP (OBR) or TOI (FED) base. (Likely the same place in this sitch.)

JM

[BK47]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

suudy,

Now, if the batter were to push the F2 (which to me implies intent), he's out on runner interference, I'm killing the play immediately, and it is certainly conceivable that I would call the runner out as well (due to his teammate's interference) if I felt a double play was likely or possible.

JM

JM, if there are less than two outs and first base is occupied at TOP on a dropped third strike, the batter/runner is out automaticly. If he takes off for first and pushs F2 on his way causing F2 to sail the ball to first base, or if there is a running lane violation, we really dont have anything on that because the B/R was already out.

What would you do in that situation? Where F2 made the mistake of throwing to first, an already occupied base at TOP on the dropped third strike with less than two outs and we have interferrence on the B/R? Like I said, F2 was not trying to throw to second to get R1, he was throwing to first.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BK47

What would you do in that situation? Where F2 made the mistake of throwing to first, an already occupied base at TOP on the dropped third strike with less than two outs and we have interferrence on the B/R? Like I said, F2 was not trying to throw to second to get R1, he was throwing to first.

Interference by a retired runner. The ball is dead; if you judge an out could have been made, that runner is out; if you're not sure which runner would have been played on, the runner closest to home is out. Other runners return to their TOI bases. 8-4-2g

[BK47]

mbyron, thats just it. I am sure F2 was throwing to first to retire B/R, however B/R was already out as first base was occupied at TOP. If F2 was throwing to second then I know I can get R1 out regardless if thrown out or not on the interferrence.

Would you reward the defense on this play and get the out at second even if the defense did not actually earn it because they threw to the wrong base? F2 should have known the situation: first base occupied at TOP with less than two outs means B/R cannot advance to first base on a dropped third strike. R1 can steal second all he wants which means F2 should throw to second to retire R1, not to first to get B/R.

Would you leave R1 at second because F2 screwed up and threw to the wrong base or would you simply send R1 back to first?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Suudy

So R1 gets to keep second if F2's throw retires R2, and the interference is ignored (since R1 is tagged out, and B1 struck out)?

Yes. IF the throw retires the runner, there really wasn't any interference.