Retired batter running as if it was D3K (ASA)

[Dakota]

ASA changed the wording slightly of 8-7-N (I think "N"... don't have a book with me at the moment; it's the rule regarding a retired/scored runner continuing to run & drawing a throw, etc.) to say that the rule does not apply to a batter "entitled" to run on a D3K (to which I say, "Duh"... since such a batter is now a BR and is NOT retired, but that is not my point of the question)... it used to say merely that it did not apply to a runner running on the D3K rule.

So, now we have the word "entitled" in there (added last year? year before? I forget.)

Is this a change in interpretation?

If a batter strikes out and just takes off for 1B and F2 throws to F3, allowing R1 to steal a base, this was always DMC, and not ruled as interference.

Is it now interference?

[CecilOne]

It is 8-7-P and "entitled" was there in 2014.
If "entitled" to run, apparently not retired. ??

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

ASA changed the wording slightly of 8-7-N (I think "N"... don't have a book with me at the moment; it's the rule regarding a retired/scored runner continuing to run & drawing a throw, etc.) to say that the rule does not apply to a batter "entitled" to run on a D3K (to which I say, "Duh"... since such a batter is now a BR and is NOT retired, but that is not my point of the question)... it used to say merely that it did not apply to a runner running on the D3K rule.

So, now we have the word "entitled" in there (added last year? year before? I forget.)

Is this a change in interpretation?

If a batter strikes out and just takes off for 1B and F2 throws to F3, allowing R1 to steal a base, this was always DMC, and not ruled as interference.

Is it now interference?

Added in 2012 as house keeping, not a rule change. My guess is someone in the staff was assigned to update some of the wording of the rules and thought "entitled" would help make the rule sound "more" correct.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in interpretation

[IRISHMAFIA]

If "entitled" was meant to refer to someone who was allowed to run, then the rule wouldn't apply so there would be no need for the exception to the rule.

[Dakota]

There used to be a case play about this situation.

Since ASA went into the background in much of MN for girls fastpitch several years ago (reasons had little / nothing to do with ASA itself), keeping up with ASA case plays has not been a priority for me - at least not enough of one to actually buy the case book.

ASA is now re-asserting itself, but at present I don't have an up-to-date case book. Our newly-minted clinicians seem to be interpreting this situation as interference.

So, if the case play is still in the 2016 case book, could someone cite the reference for me? Or, even better, cut and paste the case play and ruling here?

Thanks.

[RKBUmp]

Dont have the 2016 case plays, but this is from the plays and clarifications May 2011. There have been no subsequent updates on the subject, so with no changes to the clarifications or a different case play it would still be a valid ruling.

Play: With one out and R1 on 1B, B3 swings at the ball for strike three and the catcher drops the ball. B3 runs toward 1B because the catcher dropped the ball in a) the catcher throws the ball wildly to 1B and the ball goes into RF, b) the catcher throws to pick off R1 but hits the retired B3 in the back with the ball.
Ruling: (Rule 8, Section 7P EFFECT: When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not applyto the batter-runner running on
the dropped third strike rule.)
It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. The dropped third strike rule is not in effect in this situation; therefore the batter-runner is not running under the dropped third strike rule. If the umpire judges the action of the retired batter to have hindered, impeded, or confused the defense, this is interference. Simply running toward 1B when the dropped third strike rule is not in effect does not constitute interference. With that said in a) if the umpire judged the throw was wild because the catcher made a bad throw, it is not interference. In b) if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

In b) if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

Yes but it's going to be hard to see rewarding the defense an out in b) especially if R1 from first was off with the pitch. By time F2 throws down to attempt to put out the batter who has already been put out, the throw hitting the retired batter really doesn't impede the defense from making a play, unless there is more to the story. This sounds more like DMC. The batter is out and R1 ended up at 2B. The defense had opportunity to make play at 2B and simply chose not to, they threw to 1B instead.

Now if F2 is trying to throw to 2B to make a play on advancing R1 and the throw somehow hits retired batter now you got something!

[RKBUmp]

Thank

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Yes but it's going to be hard to see rewarding the defense an out in b) especially if R1 from first was off with the pitch. By time F2 throws down to attempt to put out the batter who has already been put out, the throw hitting the retired batter really doesn't impede the defense from making a play, unless there is more to the story. This sounds more like DMC. The batter is out and R1 ended up at 2B. The defense had opportunity to make play at 2B and simply chose not to, they threw to 1B instead.

Now if F2 is trying to throw to 2B to make a play on advancing R1 and the throw somehow hits retired batter now you got something!

Situation b is a pick of attempt of r1 going back to first base that the batter runner got hit with the throw. If the umpire judges the retired batter interfered with the play on r1 at 1st it should be ruled interference.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Thank

Situation b is a pick of attempt of r1 going back to first base that the batter runner got hit with the throw. If the umpire judges the retired batter interfered with the play on r1 at 1st it should be ruled interference.

Agreed. Point is there needs to be a play to be made. If defense throws in error to a base where there is no play and such throw makes contact with a retired batter (or retired batter-runner, or retired runner) there is not necessarily interference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I believe a retired batter being hit with a throw on another runner is a different scenario and rule than that of the OP.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Agreed. Point is there needs to be a play to be made. If defense throws in error to a base where there is no play and such throw makes contact with a retired batter (or retired batter-runner, or retired runner) there is not necessarily interference.

What do you do in this situation. Runner at 3rd, 2 strikes on the batter, less than 2 outs. Strike three is caught, the batter is running to first, but the defense is running a play where they throw to first then throw home, trying to catch the runner from third advancing home. The throw hits the better.

The batter was out on the caught third strike, and there was no play being made at first.

(I have seen this play in HS JV ball before). I've also seen it executed on a ball 4 situation to draw the runner at third home.

[JDM]

That's a risk that the catcher's taking by throwing it when it's unnecessary to throw it.

[Umpire@1]

Don't remember where I found the 2016 ASA Case Book online, but I did, and it was a downloadable PDF files, if anyone wants it, just send me a message, and will be glad to email to you.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

Don't remember where I found the 2016 ASA Case Book online, but I did, and it was a downloadable PDF files, if anyone wants it, just send me a message, and will be glad to email to you.

Did ASA start publishing a case book on even years? Are you sure it isn't the 2015 case book under a 2016 title as is shown at Official Gear ?