Stump the ump....
 

UIC presented this play at a tournament last week:

Any ruleset

R1 on third, R2 on first, less than two outs. F2 does not catch or drops strike 3.

Batter takes off for first, F2 retrieves ball and throws toward first, hitting the former batter in the back. R2 was not trying to advance, but was diving back into first.

What call, if any, do you have?????

This is exact play is being discussed in Louisiana a LOT.

Trying to think at real-time speed, (as opposed to forum-discussion speed):

If IMO the catcher was attempting a pickoff throw (instead of thinking D3K), I'd have the batter out (strike 3 + INT), and R1 is out.

If I feel it's simply a mistaken D3K situation, live ball, play on (dumb move, F2).

I'm assuming 8.7.P (note) refers to an actual D3K situation, not a mistaken one.

Can't wait to read the proper interp.

isnt the runner closest to home out when interference is called on a already retired player?... at least in FED land it is? yeah which R1 would be (edit by me) lol

That is my thinking as well. The batter was already retired, so you have interference by an already retired player. The batter is out on strike 3, and the runner closest to home is also out. If R2 would have been advancing, she would have been sent back to 1st anyway (runners return to the last base touched at the time of interference).

This is not a case that the runner was trying to break up a double play.

I was gonna get you on that...you're too quick for me.

In ASA and Fed, there is an exception for the "retired runner continuing to run and drawing a throw" interference rule (ASA 8-7P, NFHS 8-7-18) for a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

Even though both books word this exception in an unfortunate manner, leading to constant arguments/discussions as to whether it applies when the D3K rule is not in effect, when the batter is still a batter and not a BR, etc., etc., case plays such as NFHS 8.1.1-B make it clear the exception applies to when the batter/BR runs "as if" on the D3K rule.

Therefore, the retired batter is not out for merely running and drawing a throw. I don't see how being hit with the thrown ball changes anything.

Generally agree, but "hitting the former batter in the back" is not very specific. Does the running lane rule apply to this sitch and if so, did the non-BR interfere with the fielder taking a throw?

The jmkkupka comment "If IMO the catcher was attempting a pickoff throw (instead of thinking D3K), I'd have the batter out (strike 3 + INT), and R1 is out." is worth considering.

I agree with you there, in fact, I've argueed that point in locally several times.
When reading the post for some reason, I was picturing the addition of the runner being outside the running lane.

Although this doesn't actually qualify as a running lane violation - it still could be enough to qualify for the first sentence of 8-6-18, eh?

Why does it matter what F2 was thinking and how would the umpire know? The exception applies to the runner's actions.

You are right, it doesn't make a difference.........if you believe that is what happened.

The exception only excludes the retired BR from being called for interference when drawing a throw on an uncaught third strike.

However, I do not believe that exemption applies to interfering with a thrown ball or play.

You are right, what does it matter what the catcher was thinking.
The catcher was throwing the ball to first base and the retired batter was (intentionally, if you need it) where she shouldn't be and interfered with the throw.
She isn't interfering by drawing the throw (where the exception would be valid), she is intefering by putting herself in the path of the throw.

So is the concensus on these situations:

a) R2 was standing with her arms crossed on 1B
b) R2 on her way to 2B
c) R2 is diving back into 1B

situation a, b: Nothing (no play, not interfering with a play)
situation c: Runner closest to home (R1) out for interference.

Is that right?

IMHO:
A) Nothing - no play
B) Interference - f2 may throw to first to try and get a run down or some type of play on R2.
C) Interference.

I'm not rewarding a bad throw / decision by F2. If, in my judgement, B1 is unaware that she is out on strikes, there is no interference.

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.