Originally Posted by JefferMC (Post 593551)

Maybe I've been getting this wrong...

I read the exception to say that a batter who has just been retired for the first or second out on strikes where the third one was dropped (i.e. 1B was occupied), is not causing interference just because she runs to first and F2 makes a DMC and throws to first.

However, if she then gets hit with said throw, then she has interfered with the defenses ability to put out the other runner and, despite the exception, is still guilty of interference and should cause the runner closest to home to also be out. And in this case, I wouldn't care if in the running lane or not.:)

Am I off the reservation?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593557)

Jeff,

I am addressing the last sentence of the OP which specifically addressed a violation for "drawing a throw". There is no other reason for the discussion about the "exception" to the rule.

Now, if as the umpire your judgment was that the catcher was throwing to make a play on another runner (and the play was viable, not just target practice trying to draw an out call), I can see an INT call AND it would be the runner closest to home.

Originally Posted by SC Ump (Post 593431)

Was the runner in the running lane? :)

Two bases awarded on spectator's interfence?

I agree with no interfernce and believe it's 8-4-3f in NFHS if a thrown ball goes in dead ball territory.

Originally Posted by JefferMC (Post 593581)

Obviously, the throw to first was not a play on another runner (unless the runner on first decided to dive back). I just don't see that rulemakers intended that this exception would grant the retired runner more protection from interference than a legitimate BR would. A BR running in fair territory would be guilty of interence if hit in fair territory.

This retired runner WILL get the other runner more than just second that the DMC would otherwise simply by making sure she's in the way of the throw. Yes, I know the throw should never have happened.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593585)

Jeff,

You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!

This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 593611)

If the ball goes into the dugout off a runner doing the wrong thing on a throw that wasn't a part of a legitimate play and as a result runners advance is the runner not guilty of interference?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 593585)

Jeff,

You are overthinking this way too much. What protection is this player receiving from INT if there wasn't a play at 1B? None, zero, zilch, zip, nada, etc. A running lane is irrelevant since there is no BR!

This is not a difficult rule. The exception ONLY states that an offensive player who has been retired as a batter at the plate is not quilty of interference if they head toward 1B and draw a throw.

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 593902)

In this case, the three-foot lane is not relevant. It essentially does not exist and has no bearing on the play.