Does the run score?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

As I have stated before, you can't apply 6.06c due to the fact that the interference was caused by a retired batter, not a batter, in which 6.06 applies.

From the MLBUM 6.8 Batter Interferes With Catcher, it discusses the various penalties and criteria for disregarding INT via the "initial throw" interp. At the end of this section, it states "If this infraction occurs after the batter is out on strike three, the runner is declared out for batter's interference." There is no "initial throw" interp along with this.

UmpTT,

The absence of an interp in the MLBUM on the specific case of a batter having interfered as he strikes out and the catcher subsequently throwing is not probative.

As a matter of fact, there IS a case play - #14 in the "Interference and Obstruction" section of the MLBUM, but it's not really probative either.

Again, the problem I have with applying 7.09(e) is that the conditions for calling interference under 7.09(e) require INTENT to interfere with a throw (or thrown ball) in order to call interference, while under 6.06(c) intent is NOT required. So, if you're using 7.09(e) you don't even HAVE interference on the (recently retired) batter. Clearly, the intent is that a recently retired batter is constrained just as an unretired batter is with respect to hindering the catcher's attempt to retire a runner. Additionally, 7.09(e) explicitly refers to a retired runner or batter-runner, NOT a retired "batter" - if we're going to define our interp by a strictly literal reading of the rule text. (Oddly, under FED rules, but NOT OBR, a batter who has just struck out IS a retired "batter runner". I digress.)

The history and treatment of 7.09(e) (formerly 7.09(f) ) is that it was instituted to constrain a baserunner's actions in attempting to break up a double play, NOT to have a different rule for "recently retired" batter's interference. See section 6.3 "Willful and Deliberate Interference" of the MLBUM (2009 Edition).

JM

P.S. SAump is a master of the non sequitur, so I wouldn't give it much thought.