Batter-Runner on uncaught 3rd strike and loose ball

[PandaBear]

as to whether the batter-runner actually interfered with the ball or the play.

The case book cites kicking, but caroming off the side of the leg (for example) I wouldn't consider "kicking".

If the ball is further deflected away from the catcher, I agree that would interfere with the catcher making the play. But contact could actually even benefit the defense, by keeping the ball from rolling even further away.

[MD Longhorn]

Here's what you're looking for...

Did the catcher have a play on the runner (or the batter-runner for that matter), and then, after the ball contacted or was contacted by the batter-runner, no longer have a play on the runner (or BR)?

If yes - it's INT. Again, intent not required, but a legitimate play on a runner IS required.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's what you're looking for...

Did the catcher have a play on the runner (or the batter-runner for that matter), and then, after the ball contacted or was contacted by the batter-runner, no longer have a play on the runner (or BR)?

If yes - it's INT. Again, intent not required, but a legitimate play on a runner IS required.

Just out of curiosity, does this also apply to when the BR takes off for first, and she drops her bat and either:
- hits the ball in either fair or foul territory?
- trips up the catcher?

It seems to me the wording in the rule that says "interferes with a dropped third strike" is so open-ended, we basically give the catcher all the leeway imaginable to make the play. Is that really the intent?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

- hits the ball in either fair or foul territory?

Different rule, but absolutely yes.

- trips up the catcher?

No. This is one of the few exceptions to the "there are no train wrecks in softball" rule of thumb.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Different rule, but absolutely yes.

What do you mean by different rule? I had in my mind somewhere mapped this as similar to hitting the ball a second time with the bat, but as it's the first time, I guess that wouldn't apply. So we just have the regular interference rules, no?

[BretMan]

I'd like to see this rule be similar to when a baserunner gets hit with a deflected batted ball. When that happens the runner gets a break if contact with the ball was unavoidable.

Why should the defense get a free out, plus halt the advancement of any other runners, just because they couldnt catch the ball and it happened to deflect into the runner or her path?

[PandaBear]

The original question came out of this scenario, where a coach was looking for an out that the catcher had already let get away.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

It seems to me the wording in the rule that says "interferes with a dropped third strike" is so open-ended, we basically give the catcher all the leeway imaginable to make the play. Is that really the intent?

Attempted a rule change a couple years ago making this an intentional violation, but was overwhelmingly dismissed. I am referring to the BR interfering with a U3K, not a bat hitting the ball a 2nd time.