Uncaught 3rd/runner interference?
 

Uncaught 3rd strike, catcher bobbles ball, which then goes into fair terrritory where runner "inadvertently" touches it as she is running to 1B. What would you call? This was in a college showcase "tournament" where no trophies are presented.

Playing NCAA rules or standard softball? As I recall NCAA has something about unintentional in their rule about a batter making contact with a dropped third strike. All other rule sets I am aware of simply state the batter/runner interferes with a dropped third strike.

Standard softball. I was not there but one of the umpires shared this situation with me. We would really like to have a definitive answer if it happened in a competitive tournament.

USA 8-2-f-6

The batter/runner is out when the batter/runner interferes with a dropped third strike.

All other rule sets I am aware of except NCAA have the same rule.

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

NCAA is the same:

Where I think the confusion lies is with "that other sport". Over there, a third strike that deflects off the catcher or umpire and then touches the BR is not interference unless "the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball." "Clearly hinders" is clear as mud, huh?

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".

Then there is 12.19.1.2:

12.19.1.2 The batter-runner may not interfere with the catcher’s attempt to field a third strike.
Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is incidental contact and neither interference nor obstruction.
A.R. 12.19.1.2: The batter-runner unintentionally kicks the ball that had deflected off the catcher who attempted to field a dropped third strike. RULING: Live ball, no interference.

Arrrgh!! Why didn't they put that A.R. in the book under 12.2.12?? Or at the very least, mention to take a look at 12.19.1.2 under 12.2.12?

When a change was proposed (ASA) to include intent on the BR's part it wasn't so much as protection from the defense's failure, but because the BR shouldn't necessarily be expected to be aware of and avoid a ball which may be out of his/her range of view, especially LHB. Precedent exists within the rules governing a deflected batted balls.

Unfortunately, the proposal came the same year ASA was attempting to purge the rules of the inclusion of "intent".