Batter interference on strike 3, runner going, <2 outs, MLB rules

[Jocko]

Backswing INT.

As far as pure BI, I'm with @maven, @JaxRolo, @Matt et al on this one. INT +1 out or nothing.

And for those who say use judgement.......that IS our judgement.

[Dash Riprock]

Backswing INT.

 

Same rule (7-3-5c), same penalty.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

Your play: if it's BI and strike 3, then the runner is out. Simple, really. The "possibility of retiring R1" is already properly factored into the penalty for BI and needs no help from bogus case plays.

 

Attitude: I think you might be misreading my feelings about the case play as implying an attitude about you. You posted with pride about being able to haul out this case play to justify a certain ruling. Good that you know the book, and even better that you have qualms about this ruling. Nothing I wrote is condescending toward you. You have lukewarm endorsement of the caseplay, and I condemn it. We disagree. No big deal.

 

Interpretation: You can't interpret a rule that doesn't exist.

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

Fortunately, since the ruling widens rather than narrows the way we can call BI, we're all free to ignore this provision and rule on it properly.

Like it or not, the FED rule says the out for BI is not automatic when the batter strikes out.  The umpire is required to make a judgment - was a double play possible?  Failing to make this judgment and automatically calling the runner out is misapplying the rules.  It is no different from automatically getting two outs when F4 and R1 collide on the slow roller in the example you gave above.

 

 

You're not getting what we're saying. 

 

Yes I am.  The rule is black and white - the 2nd out is not automatic (per both 7-3-5c PENALTY and 8-4-2g).  The Case Book (which is part of the rules), says the runner is returned if not called out.

 

From the 2011 FED Interpretations:  SITUATION 5: With one out, R2 gets a great jump at first base and is just a couple of feet from second base when B3 strikes out. B3’s follow-through interferes with the catcher, who drops the ball and cannot throw to second base. RULING: The ball is declared dead when play is no longer possible. B3 is out on strikes for out No. 2. Since the catcher had no possible play on R2 (being so close to second base at the time of the interference), R2 is returned to first base. (7-3-5c Penalty)

 

 

No, you're not. We aren't saying that the second out is automatic--we're saying if it's not a situation where you call the second out, you don't have BI.

[Dash Riprock]

 

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

 

In this case, they are the same.  When a batter strikes out and interferes, he is doing so as a retired runner.

[JHSump]

I think something may have been left unsaid here, but I would like to make it explicit.

 

If the batter interferes with F2's throw, all sorts of bad outcomes for the defense could easily follow.  For example, F2 may throw it away into the OF.  You can't judge the possibility of retiring the runner based on the outcome of the throw.  And, the doubt should go to the defense.

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

The case play writer mistakenly extended the general provision about INT and double plays to BI. So now, instead of getting an out for BI, we are supposed to determine whether an out was "possible," as when we look at a collision between F4 and R1 on a slow roller. That's a mistake because it mashes together runner INT with batter INT, which are quite different and need to be penalized differently. I get how it happened.

 

 

In this case, they are the same.  When a batter strikes out and interferes, he is doing so as a retired runner.

 

 

That's due to FED's goofy definition of runner...which then brings up other questions.

[Dash Riprock]

 

That's due to FED's goofy definition of runner...which then brings up other questions.

 

This entire thread is a result of goofy stuff from FED.

[Replacematt]

 

 

That's due to FED's goofy definition of runner...which then brings up other questions.

 

This entire thread is a result of goofy stuff from FED.

 

 

So, if all of us agree not to enforce goofy rules, do they really exist?

[ALStripes17]

That's due to FED's goofy definition of runner...which then brings up other questions.

This entire thread is a result of goofy stuff from FED.

So, if all of us agree not to enforce goofy rules, do they really exist?

All is pretty absolute. Only need one naysayer

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

That's due to FED's goofy definition of runner...which then brings up other questions.

This entire thread is a result of goofy stuff from FED.

 

So, if all of us agree not to enforce goofy rules, do they really exist?

 

All is pretty absolute. Only need one naysayer

 

 

Don't let it be you.

 

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We shall overcome. Only you can prevent forest fires.