Dropped third strike play

[canyonjoe]

One more question if we are applying strict ruling if the count was 3-1 and the defense throws to first after strike 2 when the batter ran is it then ball 4 for throwing to an unoccupied base?

 

[Comp]

Except that rule says it's interference, and you're insisting it's not for some reason.

Im done trying to spell it out for you, you have some type of reading comprehension problem. The last sentence of the applicable rule specifically excludes the batter runner from the rest of the rule. That entire rule entry deals with retired offensive players and the last sentence is the exception to the rule.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Im done trying to spell it out for you, you have some type of reading comprehension problem. The last sentence of the applicable rule specifically excludes the batter runner from the rest of the rule. That entire rule entry deals with retired offensive players and the last sentence is the exception to the rule.

That's because you refuse to acknowledge, even if that last line applies to the entire paragraph, it's NOT a dropped third strike rule situation. There are less than two outs. There's a runner on first. That line is to make it clear that a batter-runner, not put out due to a very specific circumstance, is not interfering by running to first even though they are struck out.

In THIS situation. The batter is out. they never become a batter-runner. They are simply a member of the offensive team getting in the way.

 

[Comp]

Closest rule interpretation I can find. Retired batter running is not in itself interference. They must actually interfere in a pick off attempt of the runner occupying 1st base.

2011 NFHS rule interpretations.

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)

 

[CHSUmp97]

Closest rule interpretation I can find. Retired batter running is not in itself interference. They must actually interfere in a pick off attempt of the runner occupying 1st base.

2011 NFHS rule interpretations.

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)

And if you want a more recent case play, this one is from March 13, 2023:

Situation 3: With R1 on first base and no outs, B2 has a 0 ball 2 strike count when they swing at the next pitch that F2 does not catch. B2 as a normal reaction to a dropped third strike begins running to first base, the plate umpire announces, “Batter is out, Batter is out”. R1 seeing the ball is dropped attempts to steal second base. F2 throws the ball toward F3 but overthrows them resulting in the ball ending up in right field. R1 seeing the overthrow continues to third base, B2 realizes about halfway to first base that they are out and begins moving toward the first base dugout. The umpire rules that R1 is out since B2 was out on the pitch and still ran drawing a throw to first base. RULING: Incorrect ruling. Rule 8-6-16c has an exception that it is not interference if a batter-runner mistakenly runs on a dropped third strike and draws a throw. As long as B2 only drew a throw and did not commit an act of interference (example: being hit by the throw to F3 attempting to make a play on R1 coming back to first base) they would not be guilty of interference. (8-6-16c)

 

[Comp]

And if you want a more recent case play, this one is from March 13, 2023:

Situation 3: With R1 on first base and no outs, B2 has a 0 ball 2 strike count when they swing at the next pitch that F2 does not catch. B2 as a normal reaction to a dropped third strike begins running to first base, the plate umpire announces, “Batter is out, Batter is out”. R1 seeing the ball is dropped attempts to steal second base. F2 throws the ball toward F3 but overthrows them resulting in the ball ending up in right field. R1 seeing the overthrow continues to third base, B2 realizes about halfway to first base that they are out and begins moving toward the first base dugout. The umpire rules that R1 is out since B2 was out on the pitch and still ran drawing a throw to first base. RULING: Incorrect ruling. Rule 8-6-16c has an exception that it is not interference if a batter-runner mistakenly runs on a dropped third strike and draws a throw. As long as B2 only drew a throw and did not commit an act of interference (example: being hit by the throw to F3 attempting to make a play on R1 coming back to first base) they would not be guilty of interference. (8-6-16c)

Thank you, I missed that one during my research.

And before the argument starts about the old rule number, the old 8-6-18 is now 8-6-16c.

 

[CHSUmp97]

A friend described this recent play to me:

Runner on 2nd, 2 outs a 2-1 count on the batter; pitcher throws a change up that the batter swings at misses. Ball hits the dirt before the catcher catches it. Runner on 2nd broke for third on pitch release.
Batter takes off for first thinking it was strike three. Catcher instinctually throws to first, runner now on third goes home on the throw to first. Umpire brings the batter back to the plate to finish the at bat, run allowed to count.View attachment 29555

Right call? Could a case be made for interference, since the batter confused the catcher?

Going back to the original post, why can't you use this play that is in the NFHS case book to answer the question?

3.6.13 SITUATION B: With R1 on first base, B2 receives ball three and begins advancing to first base as if ball four had been called. R1 advances to second base as if B2 has received a walk. F2 quickly asks the umpire if the pitch was ball four, but in the confusion R1 advances to second base safely. RULING: The defensive team should always be alert to the count and attempt plays accordingly. If the umpire believes the team at bat purposely had its batter run to first base on ball three, the umpire could eject the batter for exhibiting behavior not in the spirit of fair play. Otherwise, the umpire may warn the coach of the team at bat and eject the next player to exhibit behavior that is not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. R1's advance to second base is legal.

Your example is essentially the same scenario except that instead of thinking it was ball four, the batter thought it was an uncaught strike three and ran to first base, drawing the catcher's throw. Note that the case play in the book says, "The defensive team should ALWAYS BE ALERT to the count and ATTEMPT PLAYS ACCORDINGLY." So your catcher should've ignored the batter running to first base and, instead attempt a play on R1. But she didn't, and by the case play, R1's advance is legal. The case play makes absolutely no concession for ruling interference since the batter confused the catcher. NFHS puts the onus on the catcher to know that the pitch resulted in only Strike Two.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Thank you all for the more recent case plays. I haven't had time to dig in.

Those are very evident on the way NFHS wants this treated (I never disagreed with that). I will say even their logic doesn't hold up from case play to case play though.

 

[pdqkevin]

It’s a judgement call. A case could be made that the batter running to first when they aren’t allowed to is in fact interference; the NFHS rule set doesn’t define what “confuses” entails, but in my judgment this certainly is confusing for the catcher in this case.

From a game management and spirit of fair play, the best thing to do is kill the play. Offensive coach doesn’t like that? Ok coach, would you rather have your batter out for interference.

In the unlikely event this ever happens in a game I’m calling I’ll post what call I made!

Interference is any act, either physical or verbal
…. Running in Front of fielder and jumping over a ground ball, without any contact can be ruled interference.
a runner not forced who is standing on second yelling “3,3,3” to top a fielder rom taking the easy out at first is definitely interference.

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

Interference is any act, either physical or verbal
…. Running in Front of fielder and jumping over a ground ball, without any contact can be ruled interference.
a runner not forced who is standing on second yelling “3,3,3” to top a fielder rom taking the easy out at first is definitely interference.

"Merely running in front of a batted ball or jumping over a batted ball is not interference, even if it may be distracting to the fielder." USA RS 33