Dropped 3rd Strike NFHS

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

I understand and agree with the description and explanation on interference with a dropped third strike. And that's how I have called on the rare instances it occurred. But I see another ump who called it on a play that I would have kept live. The play was like this:
1st base open, less than 2 outs. Ball comes inside, hits dirt and catcher blocks and deflects it into the batter. Batter has not attempted to advance yet but ump rings her up for interference. In my view this was not a batter interfering with a dropped third strike. The ball came into her before she even moved.

Two instances where i did call it were: 1)as catcher attempted to pick up ball in LH batter's box, bat got dropped in her path and 2)ball deflected by catcher in front of plate and as she reached for it, runner contacted her.

Your thoughts?

The rules cited reflect a batter-runner interfering; there is no equivalent rule for a batter that has not yet completed the legal actions of batter that has not yet transitioned into a batter-runner.

It is well established that, except to interfere with a play at the plate, a batter is permitted to occupy the batter's box and not actively interfere with catcher activity. Similarly, a batted ball that hits the batter still standing in the box is not considered interference, either.

If the batter has not yet ended "batter" actions (nor even had a reasonable opportunity to have), then the rule applying only to a batter-runner shouldn't logically be applied.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If the batter has not yet ended "batter" actions (nor even had a reasonable opportunity to have), then the rule applying only to a batter-runner shouldn't logically be applied.

To be nitpicky, the batter becomes a batter-runner by rule on a dropped third strike, whether she's completed "batter actions" or not.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

To be nitpicky, the batter becomes a batter-runner by rule on a dropped third strike, whether she's completed "batter actions" or not.

And, that's why I said "shouldn't logically" be applied. Not all rules are well written.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

And, that's why I said "shouldn't logically" be applied. Not all rules are well written.

Got it. Your comment was a commentary on the rules themselves, I missed that. I originally read it as subtle advice to not make a call that the book says we should.