What's the call?

[Dakota]

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]

[whiskers_ump]

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

[Steve M]

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.

[Roger Greene]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[Roger Greene]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
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?

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.

[Roger Greene]

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

[Dakota]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[SamNVa]

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 hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the box, where as 7.6.O(17) says that the batter shall not intentionally interfere with a thrown ball 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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
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.

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

However, notice

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 batter-runner on the dropped third strike rule.

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 other 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 intentionally interfere for the call to be made.

[whiskers_ump]

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 catcher 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 intentionally 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. This does not apply to the batter-
runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

glen

[Dakota]

Hey, glen,

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

As I said, I now agree, no interference.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Dakota
Hey, glen,

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

As I said, I now agree, no interference.

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.

glen