D3K With Interference

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

I don't think so. Since there is no reference as to where the catcher was throwing the ball, but the OP made mention of the running lane, I am assuming the throw was toward 1B. Rule book specifically states that a batter retired on strikes running toward 1B is NOT interference based on doing so to to draw a throw.

Unless there was a possible play on R1, I think you just have a DMC.

Before everyone grants carte blanche to the offense and DMC to the defense, let's remember the exception Mike noted "unless there was a possible play on R1". If you believe that the throw toward 1B was to make a play on R1, you most certainly do have interference by a player already out by rule. Intent is not a factor; in fact, the running lane is not a factor. You can certainly apply that the retired batter actively interfered, since she isn't still in the batters box, nor headed toward her bench; anything else would be an active hindrence.

Runner closest to home is out; and, as asked in OP, any other runner returns if not already having advanced to or past the next base at the time of the interference.

Admittedly, I didn't think this through completely in my first reaction response; but the kneejerk response was a general statement of base awards when interference does occur.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Before everyone grants carte blanche to the offense and DMC to the defense, let's remember the exception Mike noted "unless there was a possible play on R1". If you believe that the throw toward 1B was to make a play on R1, you most certainly do have interference by a player already out by rule.....

True, but if I have R1 running toward 2B and the retired BR running toward 1B, and F2 making a throw to 1B, I'd have to be really wanting that out to see a pick-off throw here.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Agreed. But R1's location and actions weren't part of the original post.

Regardless, my primary point is that we don't automatically grant immunity to this already retired player without considering if there was interference.

I personally oppose the concept that the offense can (and usually does) intentionally attempt to confuse a catcher by running to draw an unneeded throw with impunity in this instance, when doing so in another setting is clearly defined as interference. We hold the defense to a standard of rules knowledge and judgment while making the offense immune from knowing, understanding, or even caring if it is committing is intended to be legal interference. But, that is my soap box, not my ruling.

By the rule, it is unlikely; but don't dismiss any possibility thinking the offense is completely immune to run.

[celebur]

I agree that there can be no running-lane violation here, but neither is the retired batter granted any running-lane protection. Drawing the throw isn't interference, but wouldn't the ball hitting the batter in the arm be interference? Just asking. . .

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by celebur

I agree that there can be no running-lane violation here, but neither is the retired batter granted any running-lane protection. Drawing the throw isn't interference, but wouldn't the ball hitting the batter in the arm be interference? Just asking. . .

If you have been following the thread, it has been stated a few times that it would be INT only if there was a play. Throwing a ball to 1B with no play to be had is a DMC, not INT.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you have been following the thread, it has been stated a few times that it would be INT only if there was a play. Throwing a ball to 1B with no play to be had is a DMC, not INT.

Yes, you're right, it was mentioned a few times. Having re-read the thread more carefully, it makes sense now. Not sure why it didn't click the first time.