Situation (ASA JO Fastpitch):

R1 on 1B, no outs. Count on B2: 2-2. B2 swings & misses, F2 muffs ball & it rolls out in the direction of 1B in foul territory. B2 breaks for 1B. R1 breaks for 2B. PU verbalizes, "The batter is OUT." B2 slows to a stop. F2, meanwhile, has picked up the ball, and throws it to F4 in an attempt to pick off R1. Ball hits B2 as she is slowing to a stop. Ball comes to rest in foul territory. R1 continues on to 3B.

Whats the call?

[Edited by Dakota on Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:49 AM]

Dakota,

I think I need to know where B2 is. R1 is on
her way to 2B..F2 throws to F4 to try and get
R1...hits B2, ball comes to rest in foul
territory. This leads me to believe that R1
tried to return to 1B, or B2 way out in fair
territory. Was F4 covering 2B or 1B, or sort
of in no-womans land?

I think that if catcher had thrown ball and hit
the runner going to 1B and runner was where she
belonged, [running lane], then all we have is a
catcher that did not realize that 1B occupied at
time of pitch and should have attempted to get
R1 at 2B. It is the offense and defenses duty
to know the situtation.


Sorry if I made this more confussing.

glen

I've got the batter still out and a runner now on 3B. I've got a dumb catcher with a bad arm, too. Unless the retired batter did something to intentionally make contact with the thrown ball. This, of course, is making the assumption that F4 is now covering 1B.

Steve,
That was my first thought too, but then I thought: Waite a minute. Batter is out on third strike. Catcher trying to retire runner off base. Batter inteference by retired batter???? R1 out for inteference by retired batter? (Batter had no right to attempt to advance to 1st !!!)

I'm still thinking.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

Speaking ASA

I do not know if I would be so quick on this one. I believe a lot has to do with exactly "what" you consider the player.

If you still consider him/her a "batter", Rule 7.6.0 says the batter shall not hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter's box. No intention is required. Of course, the "batter" has already been put out, so where do you go from there?

Steve's ruling is as close to correct as the rule book allows, or should I say, doesn't address?

Question: If the on-deck batter were to jump out in front of the catcher to retrieve a discarded bat and was hit in the head by the same throw, what would the call be?

Answer: The call would be the runner closest to home who has not yet scored at the time of interference is ruled out.(7.1.E)

My point is that this player is basically a non-entity. S/he is no longer a batter as the 3rd strike ended his/her turn at bat. The player is also not a batter-runner since the definition requires a BR to not yet have been put out. The only absolution a retired batter has from being called for interference when running on a uncaught 3rd strike when not permitted is if it draws a throw in the direction of 1B (8.8.P)

I think this might be one of those "grey area" rules.

I'm just back from over at Eteamz. On the case book plays that were mentioned stating a retired bater should not be called for inteference when running to frist, I'd like to know if any of them address the sitch with a runner being played on or just the retired batter?

Mike may have answered this in his post. At least I'm not out here alone now. Thanks, Mike.

I'm leaning toward calling out the runner the more I think about this. (Warning: I'm not ASA trained. I'm thinking Fed/USSSA/Pony rules)

Roger Greene,
Member UT

Roger,

ASA's exemption for the batter improperly running on an uncaught 3rd strike applies only to the interference rule which applies to a player, already put out, continuing to run for the purpose of drawing a throw or confusing the defense.

Then wouldn't Dakota's play be similar to a batter swinging at strike 3, and having the momemtum of her swing cause her to step across the plate and causing inteference on F2's attempt to retire a runner?

I'm afraid I don't see any distinction between that inteference and the inteference of running toward 1st base when not entitled to advance there.

Roger Greene
Member UT

You guys are on to what had me bugged about this play.

Sorry if my description of the play was not clear.
I'll try to clarify some of the questions.
B2 was attempting to run to 1B on a dropped 3rd strike, until the PU re-stated she was out. She then slowed to a stop to return to her dugout but had not yet left her legal running lane. F4 was covering 2B on the attempted steal (who knows if the thought it was a steal or a force) by R1. F2 picked up the ball, knew B2 was out because of the umpire's call, and attempted to throw to second to put out R1. She was off balance, and her throw hit B1 in the arm, and rebounded back into foul territory, but did not go into dead ball territory. B2 made no intentional move to block or get in the way of the throw.

ASA case plays do clarify that the mere act of a retired batter running to 1B on a third strike, and thereby drawing a throw from the catcher, is not interference. However, it does not address the question raised by this play.

I think the initial instinct of most ASA umpires would be "dumb catcher" or "bad throw, catcher" play on.

However, B2 is NOT a BR, and does NOT have a true legal right to be where she is. However, once ASA makes it legal, of sorts, for the retired runner to run to 1B, shouldn't she also, then, take on the legal status of a runner for such plays?

The more I thought about this play, it seemed to be interference, since it is not drawing a throw where there is not play at 1B on the retired batter (which is what the case plays address), but it is getting hit by a throw from the catcher while out of the batter's box.

However, in a game, I would have probably ruled live ball, play on.

ASA did not make it "legal" for a retired batter to proceed to 1B. They only ruled that running to 1B after being ruled out is not to be ruled as interference. Therefore, the next question is what legal running lane? A running lane violation is there to allow a defensive team to make a play without worrying about a BR's position. Being in a running lane provides only the BR protection from being called for interference on a ball being thrown to 1B in an attempt to put out the BR.

The 3' lane has no bearing on this play.

My take on this play is that any interference with a thrown ball must be intentional. Since the retired batter did not intentionally interfere with the catcher's throw, there was no interference, and thus no interference, live ball, play on.

Now I know that a lot of you are saying that the batter was out of the box, but 7.6.O(15) states that the batter shall not <b>hinder the catcher</b> from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the box, where as 7.6.O(17) says that the batter shall not <b>intentionally interfere with a thrown ball</b> in or out of the box. From my reading of the play as described, the batter did not hinder the catcher's throw and did not intentionally interfere with the thrown ball, so again I say, no interference.

--Sam

re: "legal" - that's why I said "legal, of sorts"

However, notice

<font color="blue">ASA 8-8. THE RUNNER IS OUT. P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. ... A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the <u>batter-runner</u> on the dropped third strike rule.</font>

Didn't the rule writer just refer to B2 in the play being discussed here as a "batter-runner"? Does that give B2 in this play the status of a BR for all <u>other</u> rules that may apply to the play?

re: 3" lane having no bearing. True, the only reason I mentioned it was to make it clear that B2 was not doing anything out of the ordinary that could be construed as intent in trying to interfere with the throw.

In any case, I've kinda come full circle on this. It think no-call, play on, is correct since the first part of 8-8P says that the retired player needs to <u>intentionally</u> interfere for the call to be made.

RE;Dropped 3rd
 

Lets see if this washes or makes any sense.


There are very few coaches that do not teach
their players to run on strike outs..whether
or not runners are on bases. Most are taught
to immediately head for first on strike three.
They are taught not to peer back to see if the
catcher has made the play or muffed, because by
taking this glance they have lost vital time.
Coaches are hoping that the <i>catcher</i> is
not completely in the game and makes that throw
to 1B and it ends up in RF.

In Dakota's originial post I still have BR out
due to K...but no interference.

ASA Rule 8, Section 8, P. 2001 Book page 111.

"When, after being declared out or after, scoring, a
runner <i>intentionally</i> interferes with a defensive players opportunity
to make a play on another runner.
The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference shall be declared out. A runner continuing
to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of
interference. <b><u>This does not apply to the batter-
runner running on the dropped third strike rule.</b></u>

glen

Hey, glen,

Looks like our posts "crossed in the ether" so to speak.

As I said, I <u>now</u> agree, no interference.

RE: Close call
 

I noticed a bleep on my computer just as I
hit post, then I got knocked off line and
when I came up, we had quoted same thing
almost. :D

glen

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.

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

[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA



BTW, 8.7.L?

Mike,

I was just using 8.7.L. to illustrate that
when ASA had <b>exceptions</b> that was the normal
manner in which they illistrated it. I
realize that it [<i>8.7.L.</i>], has no
bearing on our discussion.

Thanks for the information also on ASA case book.

glen

RE: Case Book
 

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA 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.

Mike

Found it, ordered it, and <u><b>thanks</u></b>.

glen

Re: Dropped 3rd
 

Yes, I know, I agreed with you. But that still has no bearing on the original scenario as the throw was not going to 1B.