Non-D3K Situation

[tcblue13]

I think the exception applies to the phrase "after being declared out" on the D3K. Think about it. You've got one knee up in the air, your left fist pointing at the scorekeeper in the front row, your right fist beside your bosom and you are saying, "harggggh" loudly enough for the bus driver to hear. But, there is an optic yellow orb on the ground and the batter is taking off to first. If first is unoccupied or there are 2 outs, she is the exception, declared out and running. If the D3K is not in effect and she runs, you should be declaring her out loudly and clearly enough for the infield to hear especially F2.

So if R1 is on 3B and R2 is on 1B and there is one out, there is no situation when a BR would be running on a D3K and therefore no exception to the interference rule. If she does run and draws a throw from F2 and the ball ends up in RF. Don't you have a Dead Ball and interference? The runner on third is out?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

i think the exception applies to the phrase "after being declared out" on the d3k. Think about it. You've got one knee up in the air, your left fist pointing at the scorekeeper in the front row, your right fist beside your bosom and you are saying, "harggggh" loudly enough for the bus driver to hear. But, there is an optic yellow orb on the ground and the batter is taking off to first. If first is unoccupied or there are 2 outs, she is the exception, declared out and running. If the d3k is not in effect and she runs, you should be declaring her out loudly and clearly enough for the infield to hear especially f2.

So if r1 is on 3b and r2 is on 1b and there is one out, there is no situation when a br would be running on a d3k and therefore no exception to the interference rule. If she does run and draws a throw from f2 and the ball ends up in rf. Don't you have a dead ball and interference? The runner on third is out?

NO!!! That IS when the exception applies!!!

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

NO!!! That IS when the exception applies!!!

I really can't understand why that would be. It seems that the rules all have some underlying purpose of protecting either the offense or the defense. especially rules with exceptions or special situation like IFF. This exception makes no sense (to me yet) if it is not to protect the BR from an int. call after being declared (or even assumed) out on strikes. Why protect the offense that runs when they arenot supposed to run or penalize the defense that throws the ball away reacting to the errant play of the offense. I know they are supposed to be aware of the game situation.

I don't know anyone on any rules committees who could explain this so if you could please just let me know so that I could understand why the exception is not the runner allowed to run with 3K and is that there is no penalty for running when they clearly are prohibited from being eligible from reaching base by rule.

I am not trying to be a smart bohiney but I don't understand.

[Dakota]

Are you sure you're not Cory from Cali? (eteamz reference...)

ASA does have problems from time to time with a difference between the literal reading of a rule/exception/note and what is intended. Think of it this way. 8-7-P is about runners who are not runners. They could have achieved that status by either scoring, being put out, or by being a batter. Second, the exception about BR running on the third strike rule should actually say a batter or retired batter running as if it were a dropped third strike. That is what ASA intends here.

Regardless, you will not find a rule about a batter running to draw a throw, except in this exception.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Tom is on target here.

Speaking ASA

The key is the rule being addressed is a offensive player who is already out or has scored continuing to run and drawing a throw (8.7.P.Note) In the late '90s, umpires started to apply the rule to the player who struck out and was not eligible to attempt to advance to 1B due to an uncaught third strike. The following year, the "note" to this rule was added to clarify the situation.

Yes, ASA could have termed this better, but the point is that in this situation, the onus is placed upon the defense to be aware of whether the BR/retired batter is eligible to go to 1B or not and make the appropriate play.

[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.