D3K With Interference
 

R1 on 1st, 1 out, batter misses third strike, catcher does also. Runner going
towards first out of running lane towards inside of playing field, throw from
F2 hits runner in the arm. DB called and interference ruled. R1 returned to
1st base.

Is this the correct procedure?

Unless R1 had reached and passed 2nd base prior to the interference occuring (as opposed to when verbalized, mind you), yes. All interference calls occur at a point in time; none that I am aware of are subject to awards (penalties) at time of pitch.

Thanks for rapid reply.

Runner was just short of 2B when call initially made, then continued on until
told to return.

Umpires watching told me I should have called R1 out also since she was runner nearest home. Although I could never get a reasoning [ruling] as
to why from them, so I was just coming to ask the experts. {And this is
not to be a smart alex statement}, cause there are many of you here.

Since BR was out and not entitled to advance they may have been applying 8-7-P : "The runner is out"

P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes
with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

Paul

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.

Hang on, Mike. I understand the DMC for making the throw. However, we've got a running lane violation by the retired batter. As I recall, that's interference. Are you saying that the retired batter, running to 1B on the
D3K, can run outside the running lane without threat of a running lane violation?

Steve,

8.2.E specifically addresses the BR being out. How can you have a running lane violation when you do not have a BR?

I'm with Mike. This was not a running violation since there is no BR. It is not interference for drawing a throw, since the OP situation is specifically excepted from the interference rule.

Unless the retired batter did something intentional, this is nothing except a DMC. R1 keeps the base she reached, which since the ball should have remained live, could have been 3rd or even home.

Alright, I can see the ways of my error.

It appears most agree that we did not, could not have had a BR, therefore
no running lane violation.

However, I did immediately call DB, then interference. So at this point, the
bell was donged, and I should eat my booboo.

I can see that since the BR was out on D3K, did nothing intentional to draw
a throw, [except run, and I do not think it was her intend to draw the throw],
just get to 1B. One coach [offensive] hollaring for BR to run, and defensive
coach did hollar for F2 to throw. Ball was not that far away from F2, there-
fore R1 had not advanced all the way. She did continue on to 2B during DB.
I did return her to 1B.

Nothing was said by either coach. The call did get me to thinking after the
game, thus posting here to get clarification.

Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.