Non-D3K Situation

[JefferMC]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

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?

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

If the batter was still a batter (not strike 3), then it would be the batter who would be out.

Be that as it may, a throw to 1B with the batter running is not LIKELY to be a play on ANOTHER runner.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

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.

You are correct, it is 8-4-3f. Typo on my part. Nice catch SC.

[JefferMC]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

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.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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? If the BR is walked and interferes with a throw to first while out of the running lane we have them out if there was a legitimate play anywhere on the field. If there wasn't a legitimate play and the ball goes out of play do they get to go to second or are they out?

Tangentially, I have no idea how that clause of the ruling (if there is a play) is really meant to be interpretted on a walk.
________
Glass Bong

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

The catcher threw the ball where she should not had. DMC. Live with it.

If the BR is walked and interferes with a throw to first while out of the running lane we have them out if there was a legitimate play anywhere on the field. If there wasn't a legitimate play and the ball goes out of play do they get to go to second or are they out?

Not talking about a batter runner.

Tangentially, I have no idea how that clause of the ruling (if there is a play) is really meant to be interpretted on a walk.

Who cares, we are not talking about a walk.

I give up.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Okay, but if the runner already at first decides to dive back to first on the throw. Then we have interference, no? Would you care if the retired runner was in the running lane (I think not).

[BretMan]

Read the rule about the three-foot running lane and when it applies.

Note that this rule applies only to a batter-runner.

A batter running for first base, when not entitled to, is NOT a batter-runner.

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

[CecilOne]

If I apply this rule incorrectly, it will be from trying to make sense of this thread.

A few of us need to skip it and reread tomorrow.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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

Sorry I mentioned the lane. Truely sorry. Extreemly sorry. Please forgive me.