Uncaught 3rd/runner interference?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And for the record, intent is not to be considered in this ruling no matter how bad the catcher screws up the play.

To my way of thinking, the only real judgment for this play/situation is between the batter (still in the batter's box, and has not yet started to attempt to advance), and batter-runner (has started to advance, even if still in the batter's box).

If the catcher blocks/deflects a D3K into the batter, the batter has the same rights on this pitch as any other pitch; the right to complete the swing/attempt to hit the pitch, and the right to "not actively" hinder. That ball/ batter contact would not be interference.

Once the batter starts any attempt to leave the batter's box, the batter becomes the batter-runner, and may not interfere, neither actively or passively, nor intentionally or accidentally. Any contact between the ball and the batter-runner is interference.

The only third world play I can even think of that might be judged differently would be something like the catcher muffing the ball a second time, then booting the (still loose, so still with the status of D3K) ball into the back of the advancing batter-runner.

As IrishMafia alludes, many umpires want to think the batter-runner should be given greater latitude because the catcher didn't catch the strike. Many times that great drop ball or changeup falls short, just like a great slider or curve in baseball, and never was the catcher's "dropped" pitch. The fact is that the batter either took a third strike, or made the greater "miss" by chasing a ball either in the dirt or another unhittable pitch.

The rule, as written, doesn't reward the batter for the miss any more than it is intended to penalize the catcher; it is neutral, effectively already gives the batter a second opportunity, and simply requires the batter-runner to not interfere with a "play".