Twice in One Day

[tcannizzo]

Rule 8. Section 7. THE RUNNER IS OUT.
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes
with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled
to run on the dropped third strike rule.

I could swear there was a recent thread about this, but I cannot find it.
As I recall, this was the citation that allows running to 1B, but not beyond 1B.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I could swear there was a recent thread about this, but I cannot find it. As I recall, this was the citation that allows running to 1B, but not beyond 1B.

I think that there was a thread about this on the "Hey Bucket" forum that you and I both participated in a few months ago. But I don't remember any conclusions being drawn about the retired batter not being allowed to go beyond first base, That's a new one for me!

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I think that there was a thread about this on the "Hey Bucket" forum that you and I both participated in a few months ago. But I don't remember any conclusions being drawn about the retired batter not being allowed to go beyond first base, That's a new one for me!

I think it's the logical conclusion to the rule cited by tcannizzo. A retired runner continuing to run and drawing a throw is a form of interference. The recent rewrite and substitution of the word "entitled" mucks up the common interpretation that a batter may mistakenly (or deliberately) run to first base when occupied with less than two out on an uncaught third strike. The defense, and their rat coach, is supposed to know the situation and play accordingly.

Hmm. TWP that I really hesitated to post: R1 on second, R2 on first, one out. B4 strikes out on a pitch in the dirt but runs toward first. R1 and R2 take off. Retired B rounds first and heads toward 2nd, finally drawing a throw. Dead ball, INT, R1 out. Right result? Probably. Because defense was smart, waiting to make a throw on B, and offense was stupid in going past first. If the defense plays on any other runner, call outs or score runs as appropriate.

[tcannizzo]

This was part of the discussion on HB, but there was yet another thread somewhere that had more conclusions.
Here is a link http://www.heybucket.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=39124

ASA Rules Clarifications: July 2011
Play: With one out and R1 on 1B, B3 swings at the ball for strike three and the catcher drops the ball. B3 runs toward 1B because the catcher dropped the ball in a) the catcher throws the ball wildly to 1B and the ball goes into RF, b) the catcher throws to pick off R1 but hits the retired B3 in the back with the ball.
Ruling: (Rule 8, Section 7P EFFECT: When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not applyto the batter-runner running on
the dropped third strike rule.)
It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. The dropped third strike rule is not in effect in this situation; therefore the batter-runner is not running under the dropped third strike rule. If the umpire judges the action of the retired batter to have hindered, impeded, or confused the defense, this is interference. Simply running toward 1B when the dropped third strike rule is not in effect does not constitute interference. With that said in a) if the umpire judged the throw was wild because the catcher made a bad throw, it is not interference. In b) if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Rule 8. Section 7. THE RUNNER IS OUT.
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes
with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled
to run on the dropped third strike rule.

I could swear there was a recent thread about this, but I cannot find it.
As I recall, this was the citation that allows running to 1B, but not beyond 1B.

Please explain how this prohibits running to 2nd, as permitted any time B becomes a BR.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Please explain how this prohibits running to 2nd, as permitted any time B becomes a BR.

This new wording is awful. If they meant this to mean what they tell us they meant it to mean ... there are at least 3 errors in here.

First - a batter that is out on strikes never becomes a batter-runner.
Second - the added "entitled" now implies a BR that IS allowed to run and is not out... there's no such thing as a retired runner being "entitled" to run.
Third - the former wording that at least tenuously implied the retired runner couldn't continue to 2nd no longer even remotely implies that.

I know this was supposed to be an editorial change, and we are supposed to go with what the rule was all along... but this editorial change is FARTHER than what they wanted, not closer.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Please explain how this prohibits running to 2nd, as permitted any time B becomes a BR.

By the definitions. Once a BR passes first, no longer a BR, now a runner!! Assumed BR/retired batter may not be prohibited from drawing a throw, but a retired runner certainly is.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

By the definitions. Once a BR passes first, no longer a BR, now a runner!! Assumed BR/retired batter may not be prohibited from drawing a throw, but a retired runner certainly is.

A Retired Batter Runner never becomes a retired runner. In order to be a retired runner, they first have to be a runner. A runner is an "offensive player who has reached first base AND has not yet been put out or scored". This definition does not apply here. They have been put out and they can't score.

The batter is not even a batter runner by definition or rule. She is a retired batter.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by rwest

A Retired Batter Runner never becomes a retired runner. In order to be a retired runner, they first have to be a runner. A runner is an "offensive player who has reached first base AND has not yet been put out or scored". This definition does not apply here. They have been put out and they can't score.

The batter is not even a batter runner by definition or rule. She is a retired batter.

I agree given the definitions of a batter-runner and a runner however, consider this play: with runners on base, B grounds out 6-3. She is now a retired batter-runner. If she rounds and continues to second base, isn't she considered a retired runner for the purpose of rule 8.7.P?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

I agree given the definitions of a batter-runner and a runner however, consider this play: with runners on base, B grounds out 6-3. She is now a retired batter-runner. If she rounds and continues to second base, isn't she considered a retired runner for the purpose of rule 8.7.P?

Probably. However, the difference is that the Batter never became a batter-runner on a D3K when the D3K is not in effect. She is a retired batter. If this is how ASA wants it then they need to clean up the definitions. The ASA rule committee needs to do a better job, in my opinion, in editing the rule book. When they make a change, editorial or an actual rule change, they need to make sure that every rule and definition affected is changed.

[AtlUmpSteve]

All the semantics and poorly worded rules and exceptions aside, the bottom line(s) is/are:

1) Softball rules at every level allow the retired batter to run to first base on a strike out; whether dropped or not, whether the batter is entitled to attempt to advance or not. ASA for one year passed a rule to make that a dead ball if/when it drew a throw, knowing it was being taught to simply confuse catchers, but there was enough outcry that this is an acceptable part of the game that the rule was reversed the following year.

2) Softball rules at every level make it the catcher's responsibility to know the game situation. (Of course, if their coach taught, or coached the catcher, that would be less of an issue.) But, the exception, rule reversal, and even the latest editorial change, poorly worded as it is, are clearly intended to make it solely the defense's responsibility.

3) If the catcher throws anywhere but to attempt an out on another runner, it is simply DMC (dumb move catcher). If the umpire judges a throw to 1st base was to pick off a runner, rather than an attempt to play on the retired batter, the umpire can/may rule interference if the retired batter interferes with that throw (in or out of the running lane). Otherwise, this is a completely legal way to attempt to confuse the defense.

4) The protection in that exception ends with running to first base. If that retired ( offensive player) then attempts beyond first base AND draws a throw, the exception no longer applies, and can (and should) be ruled interference.

5) The NCAA Manual and teachings now include the "safe" signal when it is a dropped third strike with entitlement to run (actually signalling the defenses's need to make a play to retire the batter-runner), as well as to verbalize (but not over-emphasize) "Batter is out", and make secondary hammer signal, if the batter appears to attempt to advance. It seems fair to me that if we are required to indicate when the batter-runner is entitled, then we should equally indicate when she is not. This, of course, is only since the Major League had issues in a big way just a few years back.

6) To my knowledge, neither ASA nor NFHS have firmly adopted any of #5 above; the general consensus appears to poo-poo the safe signal, but allow (but not require) the verbal "Batter is out" when the retired batter attempts to advance. It is clear that no organization desires "Batter is out" routinely; just if/when the apparent effort to run when already retired.