Dropped 3rd strike interference?

[Guest Eric]

1 out. Bases loaded. Swinging 3rd strike change up in the dirt and ball scoots away from catcher. R3 attempts steal home. Pitcher comes to cover home. K'd batter unknowingly reacts late and runs for occupied first. Does not contact pitcher, but pitcher dodges to avoid contact (to the side then around the K'd batter), making receiving ball from catcher difficult and ball is dropped. Run scores only because pitcher did not have clear access to home plate. Is this not interference? K'd batter out, runner from 3rd out because of interference after strike out?

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Guest Eric said:

1 out. Bases loaded. Swinging 3rd strike change up in the dirt and ball scoots away from catcher. R3 attempts steal home. Pitcher comes to cover home. K'd batter unknowingly reacts late and runs for occupied first. Does not contact pitcher, but pitcher dodges to avoid contact (to the side then around the K'd batter), making receiving ball from catcher difficult and ball is dropped. Run scores only because pitcher did not have clear access to home plate. Is this not interference? K'd batter out, runner from 3rd out because of interference after strike out?

I suspect so.   Retired Runner Interference.

Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate

If the batter or a runner continues to advance or returns or attempts to return to his last legally touched base after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders

 

HTBT on whether or not the retired batter did hinder/impede the pitcher from catching the throw, or the catcher from making the throw.   And then there'd be the debate about whether or not the retired batter was normally running the bases.

[maven]

The code matters to this call.

In OBR, the standard for INT is lower: any material hindrance is sufficient for INT, whether intentional or no. It sounds from your description as if F1 was hindered, so...

"Normally running the bases" is irrelevant for OBR.

For FED, 8-4-1 makes intent to hinder necessary for an INT call. If this game was played under HS rules, then the action described does not sound like INT.

 

[Senor Azul]

By rule, the batter in the OP did not become a batter-runner—he became a retired batter.

FED rule 7-4 ART. 1 . . . A batter is also out as in above penalty or when:

b. a third strike is not caught, provided a runner occupies first base and there are less than two outs;

That’s why I believe it is not rule 8-4-1a that is the relevant rule to answer this question. I think it is rule 7-3-5 that is the controlling legal authority for the scenario in the OP—

FED rule 7-3-5 A batter shall not…Interfere with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by:

c. making any other movement, including follow-through interference, which hinders actions at home plate or the catcher’s attempt to play on a runner, or

d. failing to make a reasonable effort to vacate a congested area when there is a throw to home plate and there is time for the batter to move away.

PENALTY: When there are two outs, the batter is out. When there are not two outs and the runner is advancing to home plate, if the runner is tagged out, the ball remains live and interference is ignored. Otherwise, the ball is dead and the runner is called out. When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out (8-4-2g).

 

I have interference in all three codes—batter is out on strikes and the runner who was being played on is out for the batter’s interference.

 

[maven]

23 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

By rule, the batter in the OP did not become a batter-runner—he became a retired batter.

In FED, he's a BR. 8-1-1:

Quote

 

8-1-1: A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when:

b. he is charged with a third strike;

1. If third strike is caught, he is out an instant after he becomes a runner.

 

In the OP, with 1 out and bases loaded, he is thus a retired runner, and the retired runner INT provisions apply.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, maven said:

In FED, he's a BR. 8-1-1:

In the OP, with 1 out and bases loaded, he is thus a retired runner, and the retired runner INT provisions apply.

Where would that retired runner be entitled to run?  But I would consider it INT by a teammate. Not sure if that's a FED thing but I will rationalize it tomorrow.

[maven]

10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Where would that retired runner be entitled to run? 

Any retired runner is permitted to continue running the bases, without penalty if that's all he does. C'mon man, you know that! A notorious coach-poster brings it up every time!

[Brunswick Blue]

 

On 5/17/2018 at 9:26 AM, maven said:

Any retired runner is permitted to continue running the bases, without penalty if that's all he does. C'mon man, you know that! A notorious coach-poster brings it up every time!

Why is the retired batter, a runner? The batter was out on strikes - never becomes a runner (by rule). First base was occupied with less than 2 outs in the OP.

[maven]

1 hour ago, Brunswick Blue said:

Why is the retired batter, a runner? The batter was out on strikes - never becomes a runner (by rule). First base was occupied with less than 2 outs in the OP.

Please read the entire thread before repeating a point made in reply #3 and answered in reply #4.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. maven, if, arguendo, your assertion is correct, how do you reconcile it with the FED definition of the term runner found in rule 2-30-2?

NFHS rule 2-30-2—A runner is a player of the team at bat who has finished his time at bat and has not yet been put out. The term includes the batter-runner and also any runner who occupies a base.

I read this to mean that, by definition, the batter in the OP never became a runner, a batter-runner, or a retired runner. He was out the instant he swung and missed (because first was occupied with less than two outs as in the OP). Yes, he can still run to first but that doesn’t give him the right to become a blocking back for his teammate attempting to score.

[maven]

13 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. maven, if, arguendo, your assertion is correct, how do you reconcile it with the FED definition of the term runner found in rule 2-30-2?

Nice usage of arguendo.

FED treats a batter who has struck out as a batter-runner, even when he cannot legally run to 1B. See 8-1-1:

Quote

ART. 1 . . . A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home bases in the listed order when:
  b. he is charged with a third strike;
     1. If third strike is caught, he is out an instant after he becomes a runner.

Now, if your question is: why on earth would FED do that? I'm afraid that one is above my pay grade.

Moreover, it creates certain problems, as in this case: ordinarily, when the batter strikes out and then hinders F2 playing on a runner stealing, we want to call batter INT. But under FED, technically he's no longer a batter, as he became a BR and then ("instantly") a retired runner before interfering.

Of course, nobody would treat that as retired runner INT, not even FED. So there you go.

[stkjock]

14 minutes ago, maven said:

arguendo

had to look that one up, there's my one new thing today.  

[maven]

32 minutes ago, stkjock said:

had to look that one up, there's my one new thing today.  

Why stop with one? Carpe diem.

[stkjock]

@mavenThat one I know