Non-D3K Situation
 

When the runner runs to 1st in a non-D3K situation (Runner on 1st with less than 2 outs) I have never called Interference because I have always put the onus on the catcher to know the situation. Now, same situation and the catcher throws the ball and hits the runner and the ball goes into the dugout. What would you have then? Or do you call interference for running in that situation for trying to draw a throw?

Since there is a specific exception in the interference rule for running on a D3K, it is pretty difficult to call interference barring something obviously intentional. What you have is a DMC, that's all.

True but what if the catcher catches it clean. Any change in your opinion?

Not in mine but I just wanted to make sure I am calling it correctly.

Many argue since it is a non-d3k situation the exception does not apply. I am not one who goes by this philosophy but I have had many arguments with ones who do go by it.

If the exception only applied to true D3K situations (that is, where there actually is an uncaught 3rd strike with 1B unoccupied or 2 outs), then there would be no need for the exception. In ASA, the exception is stated Taking this exception literally, it would never apply at all because if it is not an actual D3K, there is no BR! Obviously, it seems to me, the literal interpretation is not what was intended.

But the exception if for when the U3K isn't available. The "many" have it backwards.

If it were a NFHS game I would enforce rule 8-4-3k and award the runners two bases from the time the ball became dead.

Yeah, same for ASA. I just didn't carry it forward to the thrown ball out of play base awards.

Tom... I was heading in the same direction. If you took this rule literally then you have a retired batter that is going to first and if she draws the throw she should be called for interfering with the play.

My book is in the car. Was the rule quoted correctly?

The NOTE I quoted (correctly) is a note to rule 8-7-P. Here it is in its entirety:

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Not talking about a batter runner.

Who cares, we are not talking about a walk.

I give up.

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).

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.

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

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

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