Twice in One Day

[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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

Which brings me back to my OP. The irony of the situation was that not once, but twice, it was the runner at first, not the catcher, who became confused with the game situation. In both cases, R1 failed to realize she had no reason to take off. She saw her teammate take off for first base, and instead of ignoring it, despite my calling the batter out, she tried to advance and was easily thrown out.

I honestly cannot recall ever seeing this happen at such a high level of play. Instead of a DMC, I had a DMR.