Let's be clear.

You are wrong according to the rules of softball. Your judgement of B1's intent or awareness has absolutely zero to do with the ruling on this play. If a player already out interferes with a play, it is interference.

Black and white; notwithstanding your judgement.

IOW, the third strike exception (ASA 8-7P, NFHS 8-7-18) does not apply ?

Tangent, not quite a hijack. ;)
The batter is already out, also the runner closest to home at he moment of INT, so if the ball then goes out of play, only any remaining runners would stay and be awarded bases.

Why would you award bases? The ball was dead the moment it hit the retired batter. At that point, don't really care where the ball goes.

I'm willing to larn....quote the rule that clearly states my error.

I'm also willing to "learn".

Yeah, forgot. No more comments until 8AM or finished coffee. :D

asa 8.7.p

Don't have those books. NFHS is where I spend most of my time.

Then maybe you should provide citation to support your ruling.

Googled it...

Rule clearly requires "intentional" interference... which is where I am coming from.

The last phrase of P clearly protects the batter running after the dropped 3rd strike in the initial post.

No, it doesn't. Haven't you been paying attention? The exception only applies to drawing a throw after being retired. AND there is no mention of intention.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, thought you were an umpire. Guess not.

I typed out a long, angry post, but deleted it.

Did it ever cross you guys minds WHY this is being discussed?

I'm done.

Cecil, and DRJ1960 (since you want an NFHS citation); that exception is clearly limited to the rule it states it is an exception to. That being that interference is not assigned to drawing a throw, if the batter runs inappropriately after being out on strikes.

Just that; not out for drawing a throw. But, if that already retired batter interferes in any OTHER way, then the exception does not apply.

Here is a case play where the throw was not drawn by running; the already retired batter interfered with an attempt on another runner. That has to be interference, without regard to intent.

DRJ1960, my response to you was based on the tone of your response, that you had (seemingly) made up your mind that you would rule based on your determination of non-intent, without considering any other factors. That isn't a factor in properly applying the rules, and I wanted to tell you that. If you insist on that interpretation, you would be wrong. No more than that.