Dropped 3rd Strike - Interference Called

[MTR]

Its why intent was removed, precisely to get away from "was this on purpose or not?" Bottom line is if the catcher just makes a wild throw, then there is no interference. But if the throw to 1B is in any way impeded by the retired runner (the most obvious hitting the retired runner with the ball), then 8-6-18 comes into play and the runner closest to home is called out.

Not necessarily true. There needs to be a play at 1B in order for there to be INT. That means that this throw would have to be on the runner who started the play on 1B and a defender in place to receive the throw. Otherwise, it is just a DMC.

 

[mike s]

what is DMC

 

[Comp]

Dumb Move Catcher

 

[BearFlagFan]

Not necessarily true. There needs to be a play at 1B in order for there to be INT. That means that this throw would have to be on the runner who started the play on 1B and a defender in place to receive the throw. Otherwise, it is just a DMC.

As you pointed out previously, "what ifs" can go on all day long. The original summary from djraidah doesn't state if the runner at 1B remained in the vicinity. We don't know if the 1B runner jumped back or not. But we do know a runner was on 1B at the pitch; and a relay from 1B to 2B at the HS level can get the runner out. If the thrown ball hits the retired runner (nee batter), NFHS says the lead runner is out.

 

[MTR]

As you pointed out previously, "what ifs" can go on all day long. The original summary from djraidah doesn't state if the runner at 1B remained in the vicinity. We don't know if the 1B runner jumped back or not. But we do know a runner was on 1B at the pitch; and a relay from 1B to 2B at the HS level can get the runner out. If the thrown ball hits the retired runner (nee batter), NFHS says the lead runner is out.

You can beat that drum all day, but it isn't making any sound. You cannot make in INT based on supposition. Either there is a play on an active runner at 1st or there is not. And if there is, a defender must be in position to receive the throw to make a play. Otherwise, you cannot make an INT call. Well, you can, but it would be overturned under protest for a rule misapplication.

 

[BearFlagFan]

The problem is most people think this is just a DMC. It may be in some situations. The problem is good umpires who know rule 8-6-18 (or corresponding ASA Rule 8-7-P) will call it if there is ANY hint of interference. Since the retired runner has no business running, and since intent is not in the book, just the act of being hit with the ball should lead any reasonable umpire to invoke the rule.

Here are three important links on how NFHS wants umpires to rule on 8-6-18:

 

[BearFlagFan]

Otherwise, you cannot make an INT call. Well, you can, but it would be overturned under protest for a rule misapplication.

Interference is a judgement call. A judgement can't be overturned on protest, even if the UIC believes the umpire made the wrong call. I thought I was debating with an umpire, but clearly not.

 

[MTR]

Interference is a judgement call. A judgement can't be overturned on protest, even if the UIC believes the umpire made the wrong call. I thought I was debating with an umpire, but clearly not.

Whether it was interference or not is a judgment call. However, prior to the judgment being made, there must still be basis/conditions/parameters (take your pick) met to make it a valid call. And that is certainly protestable.

Like in another thread, a called strike is a judgment ball, but if the umpire states s/he is calling strikes because the pitcher is hitting her spots, that can be protested as a misapplication of the rule since "hitting her spots" is not a prerequisite for a called "strike".

This is one of the reasons some areas train their umpires to only respond, "in the strike zone" or "not in the strike zone", if at all, when asked where a pitch was.