Yet Another DTK Interference Question

[Shmuelg]

Sitch:

R1 on 1st, R2 on 2nd. No outs. Count on the batter 0 and 2. Comes in strike three (PU calls "strike three, you're out"), and the catcher drops it. Batter-runner automatically runs to first (it is obvious that it is an automatic response and no nefarious intent was shown), and the catcher recovers the ball, throws to first. Overthrow, and the ball goes into right field. R1 scores, R2 ends up on 3rd base.

What is the call?

Do we say that the B-R is out (or rather R2 is out, because he is closest to home, and the B-R is out anyway) because of interference, or do we let the play stand, claiming that the players should know the rules and the situation?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

Sitch:

R1 on 1st, R2 on 2nd. No outs. Count on the batter 0 and 2. Comes in strike three (PU calls "strike three, you're out"), and the catcher drops it. Batter-runner automatically runs to first (it is obvious that it is an automatic response and no nefarious intent was shown), and the catcher recovers the ball, throws to first. Overthrow, and the ball goes into right field. R1 scores, R2 ends up on 3rd base.

What is the call?

Do we say that the B-R is out (or rather R2 is out, because he is closest to home, and the B-R is out anyway) because of interference, or do we let the play stand, claiming that the players should know the rules and the situation?

The play stands - that's nothing but a DMC - dumb move by the catcher.

[Shmuelg]

What about ISF Rule 8, Sec.9 (n):

n. When, after a runner, batter or batter-runner has been declared out, or after a runner has scored, the runner, batter or batter-runner interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw will be considered a form of interference.

That's why I'm asking the question, actually. It seems to me that according to this, an interference call should be made, although it goes against my intuition.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

What about ISF Rule 8, Sec.9 (n):

n. When, after a runner, batter or batter-runner has been declared out, or after a runner has scored, the runner, batter or batter-runner interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw will be considered a form of interference.

That's why I'm asking the question, actually. It seems to me that according to this, an interference call should be made, although it goes against my intuition.

That is why it is always good to post which rule set you are referring to.

The similar NFHS rule for instance specifically states that running on the dropped third strike rule is NOT interference.
I am not familiar with IFS interpretation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

What about ISF Rule 8, Sec.9 (n):

n. When, after a runner, batter or batter-runner has been declared out, or after a runner has scored, the runner, batter or batter-runner interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw will be considered a form of interference.

That's why I'm asking the question, actually. It seems to me that according to this, an interference call should be made, although it goes against my intuition.

That is 8.9.O, but it would have helped if you specified ISF Rules.

[ncaaumpdj]

PU should be saying "Strike Three" thats it....dropped third strike allows BR to make an attempt to first. PU screwed up by saying Shes out. PU should be patient and make sure ball is caught before saying shes out. Ball is still live making other runners advance legal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ncaaumpdj

PU should be saying "Strike Three" thats it....dropped third strike allows BR to make an attempt to first. PU screwed up by saying Shes out. PU should be patient and make sure ball is caught before saying shes out. Ball is still live making other runners advance legal.

While I agree that should not be part of the regular third strike call, the umpire was correct. 1B was occupied with less than 2 outs.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shmuelg

sitch:

r1 on 1st, r2 on 2nd. No outs. Count on the batter 0 and 2. ?

????

[ncaaumpdj]

agreed, should have read better lol

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

That is why it is always good to post which rule set you are referring to.

The similar NFHS rule for instance specifically states that running on the dropped third strike rule is NOT interference.
I am not familiar with IFS interpretation.

I cannot find a specific interpretation for this sitch under NCAA rules.