I don't have the rule book from then, but if memory serves me correctly, this was originally an interpretation. After a year, and a fair amount of whining (probably due to umpires taking the ruling to the extreme), the interpretation was to ignore the retired batter as it refers to advancing after being put out to draw a throw and the added sentence in the rule came the following season.

I orginally thought a retired batter never met the criteria of the rule to start as it referred to a retired runner. The retired batter was never a BR, let alone a R.

OK,but this was about NFHS and that's what I need at the moment, unless someone also has the answer for NCAA or PONY. Also, I think there was a change in NFHS in the past few years.

You guys are way overthinking this.

A batter (2 strikes) running toward 1st base under any situation is not covered in the retired runner rule. She is not a runner at all, let alone a retired runner.

The rule under discussion is talking about retired runners (leaving out the having scored part). If a batter becomes a BR under the third strike rule and runs toward 1B, again, she is not a retired runner, so if the interference rule meant to require that the 3rd strike rule actually be in force at the time, the interference rule would be nonsense. OF COURSE a BR attempting to advance to 1B and drawing a throw is not interference. So, that clearly cannot be what the rule is referencing. It clearly means a batter who attempts to advance to 1B under the mistaken belief that the 3rd strike rule is in force. That is not interference.

That is more succint statement of what I was trying to say back at post #15 of this thread.

not a third strike
 

OK, but I don't think that necessarily settles the batter running to 1st when not a third strike (hence not a BR), as opposed to running on a third strike that is caught or with 1st occupied. It seems to me the statement in 8-6-18 is about the latter.

Rule 8-6-18 does not apply to this situation at all. If interference is going to be ruled here, what rule applies? What we have is a batter running to 1st base for no reason, apparently mistakenly thinking she is now a BR. Is that interference? Is it nothing?

In my view, it is nothing but "get back, batter; that was only strike 2." If the catcher decides to throw the ball around on strike 2, DMC.

I can't fill in all the openings, but this I do know.

1994: When, after being declared out or scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: the runner closest to home plate at the time of interference shall be called out. This rule, in this form, dates back to at least 1982. I cannot find it in my 1971 book.

Between 1994 and 1997 a NOTE was added that stated: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw will be considered a form of interference.

1998 - the following was added to the note: This does not apply to batter-runner running on the third strike rule.

Now maybe this sentence was added prior to '98 and only the high-lited words were changed in '98.

My books between 2000 and 2002 are currently not available, but during that time the words "will be considered" were changed to "may be considered."

WHATEVER - as Dakota has already forceably stated - this rule does not apply to this posting.

And in NFHS (and ASA?) there is no rule that directly speaks to a batter running in error to 1B.

WMB