Dropped 3rd strike Train Wreck

[UmpSteve]

IMO, we have enough different discussions here that we should look at the rule.

ASA 8.7-P The Runner is out ....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 no 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 the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

Batter was out on third strike, by rule. By the noted exception, this person can legally run to first base without it being interference, but cannot be safe there, already out by rule. Since the advance to first cannot force any runner to advance, touching home is moot, runner R1 can safely stay on third. Catcher throws to first; DMC. No one could advance until that point.

However, once "batter-runner" reaches first, no longer a BR, now a retired runner. And the exception no longer applies; we have a retired runner that continues to run and draws a throw. BINGO. Now interference, ball is dead and runner closest to home at time of THAT throw is out.

Correct ruling, assuming I have the time line correct is one run (R1) scores on DMC, R2 (now closest to home, but has not scored when throw is made to 2nd to put out retired runner (2nd out), is OUT on the interference penalty, 3rd out.

NFHS 8-7-18, NCAA 12.9.11 Same general wording, same ruling all codes.

[AlwaysImprove]

Coaches are not being devious teaching this mechanic.

When working with 10yr olds, it is best to keep it simple. Try to get them to keep their wits about them and understand the balls and strike count. They got strike 2, and see the ball go to the ground, they should run to 1st base.

Yes, it makes things complex on the catcher, but she is going to need to learn this stuff pretty quick.

The official rule states that as soon as she touches the bag she is at jeopardy of being called for interference. In practical application, it has been my experiences that Interference is never called. That runner would have to be down there getting pretty obnoxious to draw the umpires ire at that point.

From a timeline perspective interference after touching the base is no help to the catcher. Catcher has to make the throw decision before BR reaches that first. So this just never comes up.

So net is that catchers just need to get a bit smarter a bit younger than everyone else on the field.

[UmpSteve]

AI, you are apparently overlooking a key point to this particular play.

Granted, once reaching first, IF THAT IS ALL THAT HAPPENS, it isn't an interference call. But, when she now runs to second, and draws a subsequent throw, that should be automatic.

Coaches are not being devious teaching this mechanic.

When working with 10yr olds, it is best to keep it simple. Try to get them to keep their wits about them and understand the balls and strike count. They got strike 2, and see the ball go to the ground, they should run to 1st base.

Yes, it makes things complex on the catcher, but she is going to need to learn this stuff pretty quick.

The official rule states that as soon as she touches the bag she is at jeopardy of being called for interference. In practical application, it has been my experiences that Interference is never called. That runner would have to be down there getting pretty obnoxious to draw the umpires ire at that point.

From a timeline perspective interference after touching the base is no help to the catcher. Catcher has to make the throw decision before BR reaches that first. So this just never comes up.

So net is that catchers just need to get a bit smarter a bit younger than everyone else on the field.

[AlwaysImprove]

Agree. Running to two should draw interference. And a frown

[Bretman]

IMO, we have enough different discussions here that we should look at the rule.

ASA 8.7-P The Runner is out ....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 no 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 the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

Would you have anything different if you looked at the 2012 rule book?

[MTR]

Would you have anything different if you looked at the 2012 rule book?

I wouldn't. I know were you are going, but the new wording is ambiguous at best. It defies applicability (is that a word?).

[MTR]

When working with 10yr olds, it is best to keep it simple. Try to get them to keep their wits about them and understand the balls and strike count. They got strike 2, and see the ball go to the ground, they should run to 1st base.

Don't be so quick to blame it on age. It damn near happened in the early innings of the Kentucky-Georgia game today. First base was occupied with less than two outs, batter struck out and started to take off for 1B, catcher started to react and then realized it wasn't necessary to make a play.

[Bretman]

I wouldn't (have anything different). I know were you are going, but the new wording is ambiguous at best. It defies applicability (is that a word?).

I don't think that I would have anything different either. Just wanted to draw attention to the fact that ASA did slip an unannounced re-writing of the rule into the rule book this year. It wasn't flagged as a rule change, or an editorial change, or presented in conjunction with any change to the interpretation. It just...appeared.

The re-write now makes the rule even more ambiguous than it was in the past. It used to be just "kind of redundant", now it's "totally redundant".

I'm really scratching my head as to why they saw fit to change this wording and what exactly they hoped to accomplish by doing so.

[ocump]

Dropped third, less than 2 outs. The runner is out. If the base runners move it is at there own risk. Therefore, since the runner is out there is no force at home. If the umpire felt that, IN HIS JUDGEMENT the coach started the commotion to confuse the players the umpire could have giving a warning for sportsmanship. there is no interference though.

[Coach Blue]

The Note to Rule 8.7-P in the ASA 2012 Manual states that the interference rule on an offensive player who has already been put out or scored does not apply to a batter-runner who is ENTITLED to run by the dropped third strike rule (keyword is ENTITLED). The dropped third strike rule states that she only becomes a batter runner if 1) first base is unoccupied with less than two outs or 2)if there are two outs.
Therefore if first base was occupied, the batter was NOT entitled to run, does NOT become a batter-runner, was put out immediately on the third strike, and would fall under the definition of an offensive player who has been put out. Couldn't this be considered interference, then, if she runs to first anyway? Why should this be considered any different than any other runner who has been put out, continues to run, and draws a throw?
Of course the judgement still should remain in the umpire's hands as to whether or not she actually created an interference. i.e -- runner (or runners) were advancing on a steal or as a result of the dropped third strike and the catcher could have made a play on one of those runners (she controls it quickly or picks it clean), but was "confused" (wording used in the definition of interference) by the retired batter, then I think this should be ruled interference.
However, if the runners were not attempting to advance, and the catcher makes the throw to first, and the runners then advance on the errant throw, then yes, its just a DMC!
Not trying to stir the pot or dispute any of the wiser, more experienced umpires than myself, just expressing my interpretation of the situation. If anyone can explain to me that I'm wrong, be my guest -- just want to get the call right when I see it!