Stump the ump....

[Andy]

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?????

[CajunNewBlue]

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

[jmkupka]

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.

[CajunNewBlue]

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

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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 with 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.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

(snip)

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.

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?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

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

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

[DRJ1960]

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

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.

[CecilOne]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

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

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.