Dropped 3rd Strike - Interference Called

[Tex]

Careful here with your comments, some are incorrect.

Rule 8-6-18 pertains to a runner who has been put out. The dropped third strike sentence is on a batter-runner that has not been put out until they are forced at 1st or tagged out.

It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. 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 a thrown ball hitting the retired B, 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.

 

[MTR]

Careful here with your comments, some are incorrect.

Rule 8-6-18 pertains to a runner who has been put out. The dropped third strike sentence is on a batter-runner that has not been put out until they are forced at 1st or tagged out.

8.6.18 pertains to a runner failing to keep contact with the base prior to the release of the pitch

It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. 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 a thrown ball hitting the retired B, 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.

The rule cited is correct and applicable to the given play.
This was a DMC. Even if the retired batter did interfere with the throw, there was no play at 1B so there cannot be INT. A player cannot execute a play that doesn't exist.

 

[Greenmonsters]

8.6.18 pertains to a runner failing to keep contact with the base prior to the release of the pitch



The rule cited is correct and applicable to the given play.
This was a DMC. Even if the retired batter did interfere with the throw, there was no play at 1B so there cannot be INT. A player cannot execute a play that doesn't exist.

What would be the ruling if the retired batter ran to first and intentionally interfered with the throw or the first baseman?

 

[Sweet Lou]

Or what if the catcher is throwing down to first to try to pick off the runner on first base? How does an ump make the call if the catcher is incorrectly throwing down to 1st to get an already retired batter or if she is properly trying to pick off a runner who strayed too far becasue maybe they didn't know if the 3rd stike rule was in effect or not? Wouldn't the batter beable to interfere in that case?

 

[Comp]

Trying to pick off a runner on 1st who is coming back to the bag is completely different than throwing to 1st in an attempt to retire a batter on a D3K who is already out. Picking off the runner is a legitimate play, unlike the defense not knowing the situation and throwing to 1st when there was no need.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Trying to pick off a runner on 1st who is coming back to the bag is completely different than throwing to 1st in an attempt to retire a batter on a D3K who is already out. Picking off the runner is a legitimate play, unlike the defense not knowing the situation and throwing to 1st when there was no need.

How do you distinguish the intent in the above situation? Also, if the batter, who is already out on a D3K, runs to 1B (to draw an unnecessary throw for the other runners to advance) and intentionally runs into the first baseman or intentionally deflects the throw. What now?

 

[Comp]

You can what if all day long. If in the umpires judgement the throw was a pick off attempt at 1st base, then you have something to rule on. If the judgement is it was just dumb move catcher, bad throw into right field, its nothing play on. If they do something intentional to interfere, that is a no brainer doesnt even require judgement. The batter merely running to 1st is not interference, drawing the throw is just a dumb move on the catchers part, they should have known no throw was necessary.

 

[MTR]

You can what if all day long. If in the umpires judgement the throw was a pick off attempt at 1st base, then you have something to rule on. If the judgement is it was just dumb move catcher, bad throw into right field, its nothing play on. If they do something intentional to interfere, that is a no brainer doesnt even require judgement. The batter merely running to 1st is not interference, drawing the throw is just a dumb move on the catchers part, they should have known no throw was necessary.

"What ifs" cost $5 a piece in my area.

 

[BearFlagFan]

8.6.18 pertains to a runner failing to keep contact with the base prior to the release of the pitch



The rule cited is correct and applicable to the given play.
This was a DMC. Even if the retired batter did interfere with the throw, there was no play at 1B so there cannot be INT. A player cannot execute a play that doesn't exist.

MTR and Comp, you are not correct. Tex has it exactly right. I'm looking at the 2011 NFHS Softball book, and 8-6-18 does pertain to a runner who has been put out. This includes batters who have struck out with a runner on 1B and less than two outs. That player becomes a "retired runner." They are never a batter-runner. Therefore, the sentence saying 8-6-16 doesn't apply to a batter-runner protected by the dropped third strike does not apply in the situation outlined because the batter never became a batter-runner. Instead the batter is retired by rule, as stated by Tex.

NFHS made changes in 2011 removing intent. They then sent out slides as a point of emphasis that basically said the batter is retired, so now that player is a retired runner going down first. Here's the NFHS slide bullets put out by CIF:
Scored/Retired Runner Interference 
(8-6-18)
- Intent no longer the determining factor in ruling interference by a runner who has scored/been retired
- Rule now consistent with definition of interference
- Rule easier to enforce, enhancing more consistent application
- Runner closest to home is declared out.

Accompanying these bullets was the following:
8.6.18 SITUATION: With R1 on first base and one out, B3 is at the plate with a 3-2 count. The pitch is swung at and missed. F2 drops the ball and B3 runs to first base even though first base is occupied. F2 throws the ball to first in an attempt to pick off R1, who is diving back to first base. The ball hits B3 in the back and ricochets into the dugout.
RULING: With first base occupied and less than two outs, B3 is out on strike three. Therefore, she has interfered with F2’s throw to first base. The ball is dead and R1 (the runner closest to home) is ruled out for the third out.

This was the guidance given by NFHS during 2011 umpire training. As disseminated in our area (SoCal), the rule was treated as pretty cut-and-dry. Then, just before the season started, they came up with a situation that seemed to add some gray area to what had been a pretty definitive rule change:
SITUATION 5: R1 is on third base and R2 is on first with less than two outs. B3 strikes out swinging when F2 catches the foul tip. B3 takes off toward first base. F2 makes a wild throw toward first base into right field. R1 scores and R2 goes to second. RULING: B3 merely running to first base as a retired runner doesn’t necessarily mean interference has occurred. B3 must actually interfere with a pick-off attempt of R2, which is the only reason for F2 to throw in this situation. If B3 is struck by the ball or prevents F3 from catching the ball, e.g., collides with her, then interference shall be ruled. (8-6-18)

Missing from this and everyone's argument is the importance of the umpire's judgement about interference. You can disagree with the umpire's judgement, but as judgement can't be appealed, the plate umpire's judgement will stand - even if the umpire's explanation of the judgement is flawed.

There are a few facts from the original question that are key to the call. Did the runner at 1B make a move back toward 1B before the overthrow? If yes, F2 has a legit reason to throw down to 1B. If the retired runner's path to 1B "impeded" F2's throw, that is a legitimate interference call. By rule, contact does not have to be made to have interference, just "hinder, impede or confuse" the defensive player. When this was posted in 2008, the umpire had the additional burden of guessing intent. The rule change in 2011 took intent away.

I do think it telling the coach said he'd never seen this situation in 14 years of coaching. I've been umpiring ASA and HS for 5 years and I see similar situations two, three times every year. But I also do between 120-150 games each year.

For further reference, see these links:
2011 NFHS Softball Rules: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nfhs softball 8-6-18&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http://www.softballjournal.com/hssoftballrules2011.pdf&ei=uKxhT-3lM7OGiQKs2e3GCA&usg=AFQjCNG54KrIOM2DhhkJTNjhzB7IDWgs4w

2011 NFHS Rule Changes Slide Presentation (in PowerPoint): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nfhs softball 8-6-18&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CF8QFjAH&url=http://cifsoftballofficials.org/DownloadFiles/2011%20Instruction/2011%20Interpreter%20Mtg.pps&ei=uKxhT-3lM7OGiQKs2e3GCA&usg=AFQjCNErKnw84Ungypeqn0qq0qLVl1pM2Q

 

[BearFlagFan]

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.