Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Please note that the exception refers to running for the purpose of drawing a throw. Therefore, if a retired batter heads toward 1B and the defense does not make a play on that individual, they did not draw a throw which is a prerequesite for this rule. Hence, the exception does not apply.

Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Maybe so, but still the interference by a retired runner must be intentional - perhaps you could say the runner (B2) was intentionally trying to draw a throw to 1B, but that did not happen. It would be a big stretch to say B2 was intentionally interfering with the throw to 2B.

Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

[/QUOTE]

Maybe so, but still the interference by a retired runner must be intentional - perhaps you could say the runner (B2) was intentionally trying to draw a throw to 1B, but that did not happen. It would be a big stretch to say B2 was intentionally interfering with the throw to 2B. [/B][/QUOTE]

Really? I don't think it's that far of a stretch. When playing, I use to establish my basepath so it would take me between the throw and the base every time I could. Many players to this and there is no rule to prevent them from doing it.

Also, B2 was never a runner. B2 was never a batter-runner. B2 was only a batter and the rule book says that when a batter affects the play while out of the batter's box is interference and no intention is required.

Like I said before, but the ASA book, Steve M's ruling is probably the most viable. Not because of a particular rule stating so, but the lack of a specific rule addressing the situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Mike,

I agree with all of this. The rules do not deal with this situation, exactly. Establishing the legal ("by the book") status of the player running to 1B is important to determine which rule applies.

This discussion has helped a lot, and my thinking has solidified on how to call this play. What do you think of this analysis...

The reference to "batter-runner" in the last sentence of 8-8P is the rule-writer merely trying to be clear as to which player he was talking about. It does not bequeath the legal status of BR on this player, although it is interesting.

7-6O1 (batter interference by stepping out of the box) is intended to deal with the conjestion of people around home plate, and does not apply to this situation, with the play being well down the 1B line. The rules give the batter "permission" to start to run to 1B under a couple of erroneous situations (i.e. where the batter "thinks" she is entitled to run, but actually is not). 8-8P is one of those. So is 7-3C8. If, in so doing, she is still in the vacinity of home and she interferes with a play by F2, then 7-6O1 applies. If she is down the base path away from home, no, it does not. The other rules dealing with runner / BR interference then come into play.

While she never acquired the legal status of "runner," it still seems to me that 8-8P (1st sentence) can be applied, since it is intended to deal with a retired player getting in the way of a defensive play. This rule requires intent. And, by the exception stated in 8-8P, the player as a "legal right" (i.e. it is not illegal) to be running toward 1B.

Therefore, by rule, she cannnot be guilty of interference on a throw to 1B just by running to 1B, and, by inference as to the intent of the rules, for any other interference with a thrown ball, it must be intentional.

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

I can't agree totally with this statement. 7.6.O(1) says that if a batter steps out of the box and <b>hinders the catcher</b> then interference can be called without regard to intent. However 7.6.O(3) states that any interference with a throw must be intentional <b>whether the batter is in <i>OR OUT</i></b> of the box.

Again, IMO, it comes down to the proximity of the catcher and the batter. If the batter is within arms reach of the catcher, then any interference is hindering the catcher and intent is not required. If the batter is beyond arms length of the catcher and is hit with a throw, the interference must be intentional in this case.

--Sam

Speaking ASA I agree with Sam. I keep running into the same situation in my head. However, NFHS casebook covers this and I would have an out no matter how I look at it.

Congratulations
 

Dakota,

Congrads on 100th post. I still do not have
interference on this play, just because runner
advances towards 1B after strikeout. Does not
appear to be anything intentional involved.

<b>Following just my thoughts</b>

ASA has chosen to address the batter runner running
on the dropped third strike rule in this portion of
the rule that addresses runners intentionally
interfering with the defenses opportunity to make a
play by saying <i>This does not apply to the batter-
runner running on the dropped third strike rule</i>
They do not say it is an exception, but they kinda
lean thataway. I just feel that ASA put this in at
this point to imply that just by a BR running to 1B
after K'ing, it is not intentional interference.

JMO

glen

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Since this is the only discussion going on here, I'm going to continue on with this discussion. Please do not take any of this personally as I am just trying to keep everyone reading, thinking and talking.

[/B][/QUOTE]


7-6O1 (batter interference by stepping out of the box) is intended to deal with the conjestion of people around home plate, and does not apply to this situation, with the play being well down the 1B line.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Since I assume you did not write this rule, you are making an assumption that may not be factual.

[/B][/QUOTE]The rules give the batter "permission" to start to run to 1B under a couple of erroneous situations (i.e. where the batter "thinks" she is entitled to run, but actually is not). 8-8P is one of those. So is 7-3C8.
[/B][/QUOTE]

7.3.C.8 applies strictly to the requirement of a JO batter to keep on foot in the batter's box at all times with the exception of the eight events listed under 7.3.C. It does not relieve any player from an interference call. Besides this rule applies to batters while still active. After the batter is put out, there is no need to restrict the batter to the box.

[/B][/QUOTE]
While she never acquired the legal status of "runner," it still seems to me that 8-8P (1st sentence) can be applied, since it is intended to deal with a retired player getting in the way of a defensive play. This rule requires intent. And, by the exception stated in 8-8P, the player as a "legal right" (i.e. it is not illegal) to be running toward 1B.
[/B][/QUOTE]

For a player to become a runner, they must have attained 1B safely, therefore, I do not believe this applies to any player, live or otherwise, exiting the batter's box. If it did, why is there a qualified "batter-runner" in the last sentence which was added as a house-keeping move after umpires started calling interference in this situation. I will agree that the term "batter-runner" was used as a default since there is no defined status of the retired batter in this situation.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Therefore, by rule, she cannnot be guilty of interference on a throw to 1B just by running to 1B, and, by inference as to the intent of the rules, for any other interference with a thrown ball, it must be intentional. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is true except (I bet you knew that was coming) that in all the rules which "intentional interference with a thrown ball" is used as a qualifier, the player had legally, by definition, attained the status of an active BR or runner prior to the interference whether prior to or after being put out by the defense. This is not the case with a batter who has been legally, without the slightest doubt, been retired at the plate.



If you want this discussion to go away, start talking about something else. d:-)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Quote:

<font color="blue">Since this is the only discussion going on here, I'm going to continue on with this discussion. Please do not take any of this personally as I am just trying to keep everyone reading, thinking and talking.</font>

Mike, I won't take it personally. I learn a lot from these discussions, especially around areas in the rules that are ambiguous or undefined.

Quote:

7-6O1 (batter interference by stepping out of the box) is intended to deal with the conjestion of people around home plate, and does not apply to this situation, with the play being well down the 1B line.

Quote:

<font color="blue">Since I assume you did not write this rule, you are making an assumption that may not be factual.</font>

Absolutely correct. I typed "IMO" in that sentence, but I must have erased in during one of my edits before I posted.

Quote:

The rules give the batter "permission" to start to run to 1B under a couple of erroneous situations (i.e. where the batter "thinks" she is entitled to run, but actually is not). 8-8P is one of those. So is 7-3C8.

Quote:

<font color="blue">7.3.C.8 applies strictly to the requirement of a JO batter to keep on foot in the batter's box at all times with the exception of the eight events listed under 7.3.C. It does not relieve any player from an interference call. Besides this rule applies to batters while still active. After the batter is put out, there is no need to restrict the batter to the box.</font>

True, but it does relieve the batter of the consequences of stepping out of the batter's box based on an error by the batter (thinking it was ball 4). I only included this here to argue that there is at least one other place in the rules where a player making a mistake is excepted.

Quote:

While she never acquired the legal status of "runner," it still seems to me that 8-8P (1st sentence) can be applied, since it is intended to deal with a retired player getting in the way of a defensive play. This rule requires intent. And, by the exception stated in 8-8P, the player as a "legal right" (i.e. it is not illegal) to be running toward 1B.

Quote:

<font color="blue">For a player to become a runner, they must have attained 1B safely, therefore, I do not believe this applies to any player, live or otherwise, exiting the batter's box. If it did, why is there a qualified "batter-runner" in the last sentence which was added as a house-keeping move after umpires started calling interference in this situation. I will agree that the term "batter-runner" was used as a default since there is no defined status of the retired batter in this situation.</font>

I agree that calling her a BR here does not <b><u>define</u></b> her status, but she did more than merely exit the batter's box. She is running to 1B.

Quote:

Therefore, by rule, she cannnot be guilty of interference on a throw to 1B just by running to 1B, and, by inference as to the intent of the rules, for any other interference with a thrown ball, it must be intentional.

Quote:

<font color="blue">That is true except (I bet you knew that was coming) that in all the rules which "intentional interference with a thrown ball" is used as a qualifier, the player had legally, by definition, attained the status of an active BR or runner prior to the interference whether prior to or after being put out by the defense. This is not the case with a batter who has been legally, without the slightest doubt, been retired at the plate.</font>

Yeah, this is the crux of the whole situation. What IS this player, and what rules apply to her? She is not a batter (her turn at bat is done); she is not a batter-runner (she has been put out prior to reaching 1B); she is not a runner (she never reached 1B); she is not a runner who has been put out (by logical extension).

Here's a wild thought - she is a player for the offense not engaged in the game - when the ball struck her, it became a BLOCKED BALL. (I don't really believe that, but by definition, that is what we have, maybe, perhaps, ...)

Quote:

<font color="blue">If you want this discussion to go away, start talking about something else. d:-) </font>

No ... this is fun; all the other boards are pretty dead.

glen, thanks for the congratulations. I'm now a "Sr" with all of the rights and privileges of that honor. I guess that means new members might think I know something just because I like to run off at the keyboard. I agree with your comments - the "exception" (so to speak) regarding the batter-runner (so to speak) in 8-8P only addresses the kind of interference described in the previous sentence in the rule, leaving open this huge gap that allows us to have so much fun!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

If you want this discussion to go away, start talking about something else. d:-) [/B][/QUOTE]

No, no need for discussion to disappear yet. I
have learned several things on this. However, for
<u><b>me</u></b> to have interference on a batter-runner
running after 3RD strike, she better be *waving arms*,
hoping/skipping or something to create interference.
{I am talking about 1B being ocuppied less than 2 outs]

Lets change this a little...Runner on 1B--1 out,
batter strikes out, catcher muffs ball..groping
around for ball, see BR going towards apparently
first base. ( However, 12-15 feet down line BR veers off
and goes towards her dugout area)
catchers seeing BR moving towards 1B fires in general
direction, ball ends up in RF, runner on 1B advances
to 2B. Do we have anything, and if so, what?

glen

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Let's look at one of Mike's comments, earlier:
This is referring to 7-6O. Sam's response:
A typical play where 7-6O1 comes into force is a wild pitch, the batter steps back out of the box, and forces the catcher to run around her to chase down the ball. She is interfering with the catcher, not a thrown ball. 7-603 deals with the thrown ball, in or out of the batter's box, and here it must be intentional. So, in the play we are discussing, 7-6O1 does not apply <u>because the player is not hindering the catcher from chasing down the ball, and is not hindering the catcher from throwing the ball</u>. She is struck by a thrown ball, so to be interference it must be intentional.
I still have nothing. Maybe she was merely trying to draw the throw and not <u>really</u> running to 1B, but the rule doesn't say she needs to be running to 1B, only that <font color="blue">This </font>[continuing to run and drawing a throw as a form of interference] <font color="blue">does not apply to the batter-runner <u>running</u> </font>{Where & for what intent? It doesn't say.}<font color="blue"> on the dropped third strike rule.</font>

My call would be live ball, play on.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Now this is the perfect example of the cause for the exception provided in 8.8.P for those umpires who confused a retired batter for a retired runner.

I cannot find this addressed anywhere else in the rule book, clinic guide or casebook.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

I could not find anything else in the rule book either.
I have seen the above happen in some instances.

Mike, you keep referring to the the portion of rule 8
sec 8 P as an exception. I dont feel that ASA is stating
that it is an exception, but more of a rule that it is
not interference when BR runs after dropped third strike.
Normally ASA points out <i>exceptions</I> i.e. rule 8.7.L.
Again this is JMO.

Also, where can I get the ASA Case Book? What is the
latest version?

Thanks

glen

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE;Dropped 3rd
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by whiskers_ump

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA Quote: [i] I could not find anything else in the rule book either. I have seen the above happen in some instances. Mike, you keep referring to the the portion of rule 8 sec 8 P as an exception. I dont feel that ASA is stating that it is an exception, but more of a rule that it is not interference when BR runs after dropped third strike. Normally ASA points out <i>exceptions</I> i.e. rule 8.7.L. Again this is JMO. Also, where can I get the ASA Case Book? What is the latest version? Thanks glen

The reason I say it is an "exception" is because it is basically a reminder that a retired batter is NOT a runner. This rule applies to the "runner" continuing to run and drawing a throw. BTW, 8.7.L?

You can probably order a case book at http://www.softball.org/

Click on ASA Online Store, then Publications. The 2001 version is the latest.

Dropped 3rd
 

As I said above, this BR is covered by 8-8P. Perhaps she was trying to draw the throw, perhaps not -maybe she just realized she was out anyway so she gave it up. In either case 8-8P says she is not guilty of interference by trying to draw the throw.