batter interference

[bbman]

Fed:
No outs, runner on first stealing. Batter swings and misses but interferes with catcher. I know batter out but:
1. What if strike three? Can runner also be called out if no throw? Or does she just return to first?
2. What if throw is made & runner is thrown out? Does she still return because its an immediate dead ball?

Thanks

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by bbman

Fed:
No outs, runner on first stealing. Batter swings and misses but interferes with catcher. I know batter out but:

Any interference, by a batter, a batter-runner, runner, retired/scored runner is a dead ball. In this case, interference by a batter is a dead ball, batter out and all runners return to the last base touched.

1. What if strike three? Can runner also be called out if no throw? Or does she just return to first?

If strike three, she is now a retired batter and the runner closest to home would be declared out.

2. What if throw is made & runner is thrown out? Does she still return because its an immediate dead ball?

Any throw is moot. Dead ball on the interference

Thanks

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bbman

Fed:
No outs, runner on first stealing. Batter swings and misses but interferes with catcher. I know batter out but:
1. What if strike three? Can runner also be called out if no throw? Or does she just return to first?
2. What if throw is made & runner is thrown out? Does she still return because its an immediate dead ball?

Thanks

Love to know how the retired batter interfered

[bbman]

Easy, she crossed home plate just as the catcher was throwing to second & interfered with the throw.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by bbman

Fed:
No outs, runner on first stealing. Batter swings and misses but interferes with catcher. I know batter out but:
1. What if strike three? Can runner also be called out if no throw? Or does she just return to first?
2. What if throw is made & runner is thrown out? Does she still return because its an immediate dead ball?

Thanks

Maybe I've read this differently than some others.

We've set up the scenario thusly (is that a word?):
No outs, runner on first stealing. Batter swings and misses but interferes with catcher.

Then, we get a series of "what ifs". But they don't really matter, do they?
The batter has interfered with the catcher. Cain't nuttin' else happen other than an immediate dead ball and the batter is out. Doesn't matter how many strikes, doesn't matter that a runner was stealing (she returns to previous base).

This could qualify as a test question at some point, though.

[Zepp]

I know that the OP was for Fed rules but here's a case play from a different rule set.

USA Softball - March 2012 Plays & Clarifications

PLAY: One out R1 on 1B. B3 swings and misses at strike three. B3 turns to walk back to the dugout as F2 realizes that R1 is stealing 2B. F2 steps forward to throw R1 out but stops in the middle of the play because B3 is in the way. R1 goes into 2B uncontested. When all playing action has ceased the coach of the team on defense asks for time and comes out to ask for an explanation as to why the umpire didn’t rule interference on B3

RULING: R1 is safe at 2B and B3 is not guilty of interference. Rule 1 Interference, Rule 7, Section 6P or 6Q: The batter is out: When hindering the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box or when actively hindering the catcher while in the batter’s box. In this case the umpire judged that the batter did not impede, hinder or confuse the defense from executing a play. If the umpire had judged there was interference since B3 was already out then R1 would have also been called out. Rule 8 Section 7P

[bbman]

My real question with this rule is: (again fed)
Runners on first & third (no outs) when batter strikes out & interferes with catcher's throw down to second in attempt to throw out runner trying to steal second. Calling the runner out at third in this situation seems awfully severe!
Thanks

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by bbman

My real question with this rule is: (again fed)
Runners on first & third (no outs) when batter strikes out & interferes with catcher's throw down to second in attempt to throw out runner trying to steal second. Calling the runner out at third in this situation seems awfully severe!
Thanks

Please answer these two questions

1) How did batter interfere?

2) Did the Catcher make a throw?

If in fact the batter did interfere after striking out then they are a retired runner and the penalty for this is runner closest to home is ruled out

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by bbman

My real question with this rule is: (again fed)
Runners on first & third (no outs) when batter strikes out & interferes with catcher's throw down to second in attempt to throw out runner trying to steal second. Calling the runner out at third in this situation seems awfully severe!
Thanks

I'm seeing an opinion, but no question.

Sometimes rules change, this year was no runner advance on an IP (Fed). But until a rule changes, we apply as stated in the book.