Dropped Second Strike

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NSABlue

I sure wish that the FED would issue a clarification for this type of play. My local association had quite a bit of discussion on this type of play, basically one where a B-R takes off for first base thinking there is a D3K when that is not the actual situation. There was so much discussion that our UIC went to the FED to get a ruling. He was told to go to our State Rules Interpretor. Mr Kotowski (Maryland) issued a ruling that said anytime a runner takes off for first base, when she is not entitled to do so and draws a throw from the catcher, the runner is called out for interference, ball is dead and no other runners can advance. I totally disagree with this ruling. I believe the defense is responsible for knowing the situation and the ball is alive and in play, runners may advance at their own risk. However, I will use the State Rules Guru's ruling until I'm told to do otherwise.

I wonder if your State Rules Guru has read 8-6-18 (my 2005 book, it may be a different cite in 2006); it specifically states that a batter-runner running on the third strike rule (even when not entitled to do so) is NOT guilty of interference. "A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule."

This isn't gray; it's black letter law.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I wonder if your State Rules Guru has read 8-6-18 (my 2005 book, it may be a different cite in 2006); it specifically states that a batter-runner running on the third strike rule (even when not entitled to do so) is NOT guilty of interference. "A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule."

I see the rule you are citing but I have to question the "even when not entitled to do so" part. If a runner is running on a dropped 2nd strike, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. Also, if she is running on a dropped third strike but 1st is occupied with less than 2 outs, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. In both cases, she is running in violation of the rules. 8-2-1

I realize that I am much less experienced that most of you on this forum and maybe out of my league to reply but if the conditions for the dropped third strike rule are not met, how can that rule be applied?

That is why I thought it would be interference if the players in the dugout are yelling "run, run" to a batter on a dropped third strike when she is not entitled to run and that action confuses the catcher into throwing down.

But when I look at 2-32, interference is the confusion of a player "attempting to make a play." So maybe confusing a player to attempt a play would not be classified as interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Think of it this way, TCBlue; if the BR is entitled to run, then it would be obvious to anyone that running isn't an act of interference, wouldn't it? So, what is the rule trying to say?

That rule is telling you that running in a situation when the third strike rule does not entitle the BR to run is not interference. It (that line) was added about 5 or 6 years ago for exactly that reason. The explanation and examples given that year was exactly that; it is not in our purview to judge if the runner runs because she mistakes the situation, or if it is intentional. If the defense makes a play when no play was necessary, or makes the wrong play, too bad defense.

[CecilOne]

Steve,
wrt "That rule is telling you that running in a situation when the third strike rule does not entitle the BR to run is not interference. It (that line) was added about 5 or 6 years ago for exactly that reason. The explanation and examples given that year was exactly that; it is not in our purview to judge if the runner runs because she mistakes the situation, or if it is intentional."
Do you have an available reference, copy of a ruling, or anything in writing that we can use to document this for those who disagree?
BTW, at the moment, the rule book and lack of a case leaves me undecided about these situations.

[AtlUmpSteve]

My personal collection of ASA rulebooks stops (starts) in 1999, the year I separated (and my ex decided what I no longer needed). If Mike or someone else with a historic collection of ASA rulebooks (WMB?) can go back before that, I believe that the one year of calling it a dead ball (to stop umpires from calling it interference) if the retired batter ran was about 1996 or 1997, then the rule was changed to the current live ball but cannot be interference the next year (1997 or 1998) with the written rationale for the change in the front of the ASA rulebook.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My personal collection of ASA rulebooks stops (starts) in 1999, the year I separated (and my ex decided what I no longer needed). If Mike or someone else with a historic collection of ASA rulebooks (WMB?) can go back before that, I believe that the one year of calling it a dead ball (to stop umpires from calling it interference) if the retired batter ran was about 1996 or 1997, then the rule was changed to the current live ball but cannot be interference the next year (1997 or 1998) with the written rationale for the change in the front of the ASA rulebook.

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My personal collection of ASA rulebooks stops (starts) in 1999, the year I separated (and my ex decided what I no longer needed). If Mike or someone else with a historic collection of ASA rulebooks (WMB?) can go back before that, I believe that the one year of calling it a dead ball (to stop umpires from calling it interference) if the retired batter ran was about 1996 or 1997, then the rule was changed to the current live ball but cannot be interference the next year (1997 or 1998) with the written rationale for the change in the front of the ASA rulebook.

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My personal collection of ASA rulebooks stops (starts) in 1999, the year I separated (and my ex decided what I no longer needed). If Mike or someone else with a historic collection of ASA rulebooks (WMB?) can go back before that, I believe that the one year of calling it a dead ball (to stop umpires from calling it interference) if the retired batter ran was about 1996 or 1997, then the rule was changed to the current live ball but cannot be interference the next year (1997 or 1998) with the written rationale for the change in the front of the ASA rulebook.

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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

I see the rule you are citing but I have to question the "even when not entitled to do so" part. If a runner is running on a dropped 2nd strike, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. Also, if she is running on a dropped third strike but 1st is occupied with less than 2 outs, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. In both cases, she is running in violation of the rules. 8-2-1

I realize that I am much less experienced that most of you on this forum and maybe out of my league to reply but if the conditions for the dropped third strike rule are not met, how can that rule be applied?

That is why I thought it would be interference if the players in the dugout are yelling "run, run" to a batter on a dropped third strike when she is not entitled to run and that action confuses the catcher into throwing down.

But when I look at 2-32, interference is the confusion of a player "attempting to make a play." So maybe confusing a player to attempt a play would not be classified as interference.

Well... if you get right down to it, if this is the 2nd strike, the batter is neither a batter-runner nor a runner. Thus the rule that a "runner" being called for interference does not apply to this player.

[mcrowder]

By the way, did anyone ask the catcher why she didn't just throw it to the pitcher covering home?

I agree with Mike. Barring intent here, this is just a dumb-move-catcher.

I have not done FED FP in several years. I am just getting back into FP (ASA) this year. There was something in the FED case book about running to 1B when the D3K rules was not into effect. The umpire was to "forcefully announce" the batter was out, ball remains alive. Has this rule been changed?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by softball_junky

I have not done FED FP in several years. I am just getting back into FP (ASA) this year. There was something in the FED case book about running to 1B when the D3K rules was not into effect. The umpire was to "forcefully announce" the batter was out, ball remains alive. Has this rule been changed?

No, that ruling in that case is still there, but says nothing about if the batter does not hear or ignores the umpire. Also, the ruling just instructs the umpire, with no effect on player specified.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

No, that ruling in that case is still there, but says nothing about if the batter does not hear or ignores the umpire. Also, the ruling just instructs the umpire, with no effect on player specified.

And it just applies to actual dropped third strikes where the batter does not become a batter-runner. It doesn't apply to cases where batter runs on a 2nd strike erroneously.