Runner Interferance or Live ball

[Pale Rider]

Play: With one out and R1 on 1B, B3 swings at the ball for strike three and the catcher drops the ball. B3 runs toward 1B because the catcher dropped the ball in a) the catcher throws the ball wildly to 1B and the ball goes into RF, b) the catcher throws to pick off R1 but hits the retired B3 in the back with the ball.
Ruling: (Rule 8, Section 7P EFFECT: 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 applyto the batter-runner running on
the dropped third strike rule.)
I think this would be the closest ruling. 2011 Plays and Calrifications
It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. The dropped third strike rule is not in effect in this situation; therefore the batter-runner is not running under the dropped third strike rule. If the umpire judges the action of the retired batter to have hindered, impeded, or confused the defense, this is interference. Simply running toward 1B when the dropped third strike rule is not in effect does not constitute interference. With that said in a) if the umpire judged the throw was wild because the catcher made a bad throw, it is not interference. In b) if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

[narcosis]

Thanks for all the replies. I guess ultimately, if I'm understanding this right, it depends on the judgement of the PU if F2 is making a play at 1b. Where it's a little fuzzy is if it doesn't matter where the batter/runner is when F2 is throwing to 1b how could it be considered interferrence and not just DMC.

I guess with the PU calling dead ball is why the runners were returned to their bases; eventhough, if I'm understanding this correctly, there really was no interferrence, the runners should/could have advanced with R1 scoring. The PU/FU/UIC just made a bad call in calling dead ball and returning the runners.?.

Once again thanks...just trying to wrap my head around this.

[Pale Rider]

This better fits the play you described, r2 and r3 left base assuming they had to run, but didnt have to, the batter was retired and was not eligible to run.

if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

Thanks for all the replies. I guess ultimately, if I'm understanding this right, it depends on the judgement of the PU if F2 is making a play at 1b. Where it's a little fuzzy is if it doesn't matter where the batter/runner is when F2 is throwing to 1b how could it be considered interferrence and not just DMC.

I guess with the PU calling dead ball is why the runners were returned to their bases; eventhough, if I'm understanding this correctly, there really was no interferrence, the runners should/could have advanced with R1 scoring. The PU/FU/UIC just made a bad call in calling dead ball and returning the runners.?.

Once again thanks...just trying to wrap my head around this.

[Makina]

In the lower age levels of Rec ball some coaches teach the runner to run to 1st on any strike 3 to try and get the catcher to throw down to 1B or even with less than 2 strikes with no runner on base to get catcher to throw down to 1B (thus delay of game, ball is awarded).

I did see this backfire when the runner ran, catcher hit her in the back with the throw to 1st and Umpire ruled interference and called runner on base out who was stealing 2B.

[chromo]

I am now confused. Last weekend with runners on 2 and 3 and 1 out batter bunts, runs to first inside the foul line in fair territory, actually straddling the line. as her foot hots the white part of the double bag the catcher's throw to first hits the runner in the head. PU calls dead ball, calls the br out and returns the runners to 3 and 2. says the BR was running in fair territory. If every single time a BR ruyns in fair territory to first base and is hit by the ball why wouldn't the catcher fielding the bunt just hit the bR every time and get a dead ball out and all runners returned? That can't be the rule. But the talk in this post about ok to run in fair territory has me confused.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Thanks for all the replies. I guess ultimately, if I'm understanding this right, it depends on the judgement of the PU if F2 is making a play at 1b. Where it's a little fuzzy is if it doesn't matter where the batter/runner is when F2 is throwing to 1b how could it be considered interferrence and not just DMC.

I guess with the PU calling dead ball is why the runners were returned to their bases; eventhough, if I'm understanding this correctly, there really was no interferrence, the runners should/could have advanced with R1 scoring. The PU/FU/UIC just made a bad call in calling dead ball and returning the runners.?.

Once again thanks...just trying to wrap my head around this.

There is no BR in the play you describe ... She was a Batter and then a retired Batter, at no point did she become a BR ...

[GIMNEPIWO]

I am now confused. Last weekend with runners on 2 and 3 and 1 out batter bunts, runs to first inside the foul line in fair territory, actually straddling the line. as her foot hots the white part of the double bag the catcher's throw to first hits the runner in the head. PU calls dead ball, calls the br out and returns the runners to 3 and 2. says the BR was running in fair territory. If every single time a BR ruyns in fair territory to first base and is hit by the ball why wouldn't the catcher fielding the bunt just hit the bR every time and get a dead ball out and all runners returned? That can't be the rule. But the talk in this post about ok to run in fair territory has me confused.

In this case, in the Umpires judement the BR was outside of the 3 foot running lane AND interfered with the fielder taking the throw at 1st base ... There has to be a throw, it has to be catchable and the BR has to be outside the 3' lane ... It is easier for F2 to throw the ball to the fielder covering 1st than it is to hit a moving target hoping she is judged out of the lane with a throw that you hope the Umpire would think is catchable, isn't it ?

[chromo]

Does the 3 foot running lane mean 3 feet into fair territory or only 3 feet measured from the foul line into foul territory? There was no doubt she was not entirely withing the chalked running lane in foul territory, although there wasn't any chalked running lane, and she had her foot on the white bag when the ball hit her in the head, so I don't think there was any way she could have been more than 3 feet into fair territory from the foul line. The 1st baseman could have had her foot on the infield side of the 1st base and reached out and caught the throw but the throw was right at the back of the batter's helmet and the runner is 6 feet tall. It was a high throw. ( I don't think that was intentional, that's just where the throw went) but the bunt was fielded about 6 feet in front of home plate and there was plenty of angle to get a catchable throw to 1st base. It just seemed to me that if the batter is out when she is slightly in fair territory whenever the thrower just hits the running batter with the ball even if she has touched 1st base that the umpire is saying just nail the running batter each time. That can't be the rule so I am confused. All I can think of is to tell the batter to run in foul territory, although I don't think that is required by the rule.

[Comp]

The running lane, marked or not starts 30' from home plate, is 3' in foul territory and runs the rest of the way to 1st base. There is no rule requiring the BR to be in the running lane, but, if they are in the running lane they are protected from being called for interference should they be hit by the throw.

The play as you have presented it I dont believe should have been called as interference on the BR. If her foot was already on 1st base there was no possible play at 1st for her to interfere with. Now, that being said, the BR is suppose to used the colored portion of 1st base when there is a possible play. But, if they dont and step on the white portion the umpire is still to rule the runner safe if they did beat the throw and then it becomes a live ball appeal situation in which the defense must appeal the BR having touched only the white portion of the base prior to the BR returning to the base.

[2bucketdad]

With one out and I have runners on 1st and second my batter would be out but if the catcher throws the ball and hits the runner as she is running it out to first my runners advance...the batter runner is out and the runners get all they can get no dead ball unless the ball that hit the batter runner goes into dead ball territory then the runners get 2 bases...right?