dropped third strike question
 

ASA ONLY(do not know any other rules but asa runner on third 0 outs or 1 out batter strikes out and catcher throws down to 3rd for a run down the 3rd baseman is about to tag runner out the batter runner enters the dugout, once she enters that dead ball area play becomes dead no matter what,just learned that today from nys clinician,unreal if anyone does not believe it read page 85 section 2d then read the effect section 2d-h

Andy,
What's the question?

No question did you ever call dead ball when a player entered the team dugout no matter what the situation is

I don't think this applies here. Note that the heading of the rule 8-2 is "A Batter-Runner is Out...". The player that entered the dugout ceased to be a batter-runner when she was retired on the third strike.

I'm assuming D3K

8.2.D. When the BR fails to advance to first base and enters the team area after a batted fair ball, a base on balls in Fast Pitch or Slow Pitch w/stealing, a dropped third strike, or catcher obstruction.

The effect is "The ball is dead and runner(s) must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference."

It isn't right, but it is the rule.

...says the man that time and time again has admonished us to "not read more into the play than what was presented". ;)

Subject line, just not included in scenario

Using conventional English grammar would make it easier to understand your post.

Amen brother.....
:)

Um .... WHAT interference? I thought there was a memo even taht this was a typo. The Effect should be for E-H (as E through H all deal with interference.) D does not.

I dont recall seeing a memo on it and cant find anyting on the ASA sight regarding errors in the rule book. Have also gone back through the last years worth of rules clarifications and cant find anything on it.

Doh! :)

I know that this seeming typo has been discussed here and on other forums in the past. Don't recall any official interpretation being handed down that says to treat it otherwise than as written.

I know everybody here seems to think this rule is wrong. But it does match the NFHS rule. 8-2-4 and there it clearly isn't just an editorial mistake. (Don't have my casebook, but I think there is a case play as well.)

I still have to ask then ... the effect refers to the interference. What interference???

If the rule is read as is, it is interference to run off the field (perhaps somewhere somebody thought it confused the defense if one of the runners disappeared).