Dropped third strike play

[The Man In Blue]

8-6-16(c)



The error in the writing is the unclear pronoun "This." Is "This" the rule or the sentence before it?

If "This" is the rule itself, then we cannot use this rule for a UK3.

If "This" is the sentence before it, it takes the word "may" out of play and tells us there is a ruling we MUST make. It doesn't say what that ruling is though: the runner must be considered interfering OR the runner must not be considered as interfering?

Either way, it does NOT say that a retired runner has carte blanche to run wild. It does say that the act itself is not necessarily interference. You must consider the context and what happens. A runner running on good faith should not be considered interference. A runner continuing to run when they should know they are out (umpire calls it loudly, play was evident, etc.) may be interfering.

So what else can we fall back on?

7-4-7



and 8-1(b)




and

8-2-1


and

8-2-7


A batter is typically given the benefit of doubt in their knowledge of whether the catcher caught the ball or not*. That happens behind them, so this is why batters are given some leeway to run on an uncaught third strike. However, a batter should know if first base is occupied with less than two outs. Regardless of whether the catcher catches the ball or not, the batter should know they are out due to the situation. This is the same situational awareness at the time of the pitch (not an evolving play) that is the standard we apply to the defense on an infield fly. This rule does NOT say it is definitively NOT interference if a batter runs.

*That's not a rule though. So what else do we have?

In the actual rulebook, just the definition of interference:




I'll have to dig into the casebook references tomorrow, as I don't have a digital one to cite efficiently.

 

[Comp]

Why do you insist on trying to work around what a rule says? Your answer is in 8-6-16 c. That's all the further you need to read.

 

[daywalkerdad]

Before you apply any rule, you must determine what the player going to first is.
Is the player a runner, a batter runner, a batter, or non of them?
IMO, the player is not a runner or batter runner. Applying rules that references them is not correct.

 

[Comp]

Well with that reasoning you can't call a retired runner a runner anymore and so when that same rule talks about a runner continuing to run you can't apply that part of the rule either.

What else can the rule possibly be talking about? That entire section of the rule is discussing retired offensive players and what they do may be interference. Then it specifically excludes the batter runner running on a dropped 3rd strike. So what else could the rule possibly be getting at? Why would they discuss a real batter runner in a section of the rule about retired runners because an actual batter runner is not out. And as I just stated, this same rule also talks about a runner when it obviously means a retired runner.

If you want to keep going back to the strict definition of interference then why isn't it interference for a runner on third to take a hard lead on a ground ball to f6 drawing her attention and causing her to throw late to first? That confused and impeded her from making a play on the batter runner. So why isn't that interference? Not everything the offense does that confuses the defense is interference. When you have to dig so hard to try and work your way around what a rule says you are simply trying to ignore it because you want desperately to call it interference.

There are situations where the rulebook requires the defense to know the situation and make the appropriate play. The defense should know the batter was out and no play needed. For that matter, the play just posted sure sounds like the catcher had the runner basically standing still midway between first and second. So why didn't she play on the lead runner rather than going after the batter?

 

[Carty]

I am curious. This has been an interesting discussion and a play I have seen in the past as well. I have appreciated comments from Comp, TMIB, and any others through the years. One thing I saw in the rules is the statements of dropped THIRD strike. The original post was a dropped 2nd strike. Wouldn't it be that the DK3 rule is not in effect at this time? So reference to it may have some value, but it hasn't (the DK3) happened yet. We just have a batter, truly not a batter runner, breaking for 1st. Something akin to the coach running toward home in TMIB's examples.

 

[daywalkerdad]

A retired runner is a retired runner. Thus the distinction between the two in the rule book.


A runner has a right to an unoccupied base. If in this case you treat as a runner the then wouldn’t they be safe or out when they reach first?

 

[Comp]

I am curious. This has been an interesting discussion and a play I have seen in the past as well. I have appreciated comments from Comp, TMIB, and any others through the years. One thing I saw in the rules is the statements of dropped THIRD strike. The original post was a dropped 2nd strike. Wouldn't it be that the DK3 rule is not in effect at this time? So reference to it may have some value, but it hasn't (the DK3) happened yet. We just have a batter, truly not a batter runner, breaking for 1st. Something akin to the coach running toward home in TMIB's examples.

There is no case play to specifically cover the original post, but there is a case play on a batter advancing to first base on ball 3 and other runners also advancing on the "walk". The case play makes it clear that the defense is responsible for knowing the count and making the appropriate play. The play would stand and the runner advance is legal, the batter would be returned to complete their at bat. The same reasoning would be applied to a runner going on strike 2. The defense should know the situation and play accordingly. There is no play to be had on the batter as it is only strike 2 and the defense should be paying attention to what other runners are doing.

Now that being said, the case play also states if the umpire believes it to be a coached tactic they can issue warnings and eject players if it continues to happen.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Why do you insist on trying to work around what a rule says? Your answer is in 8-6-16 c. That's all the further you need to read.

if we're going back to the first play, with the 2-1 count and 2 outs, that rule doesn't apply anyway, because it literally begins "After being declared out, or scoring" which is not applicable to the batter.

What IS applicable, is 8-6-16a which suggests that a coach or offensive player (so, a batter) running towards a base in order to draw a throw is interference. Though I'd agree with TMIB that this wasn't likely the intent and they were breaking for first in good faith and that shouldn't necessarily be called interference.

 

[Comp]

if we're going back to the first play, with the 2-1 count and 2 outs, that rule doesn't apply anyway, because it literally begins "After being declared out, or scoring" which is not applicable to the batter.

What IS applicable, is 8-6-16a which suggests that a coach or offensive player (so, a batter) running towards a base in order to draw a throw is interference. Though I'd agree with TMIB that this wasn't likely the intent and they were breaking for first in good faith and that shouldn't necessarily be called interference.

That response wasnt to the original post, it was directed toward the most recent post about calling a batter runner out who was running on strike 3 with 1st base occupied. There is no need to try and dig through the rulebook trying to work around the rule, that entire section of the rule is specific to retired offensive runners. The entire rule is prefaced with "After being declared out or after scoring". Everything in that rule is dealing specifically with that qualifying statement.

As per the original play, I just responded to that as well. There is no direct rule or case play regarding that situation, but it follow in line with the case play on a batter advancing on ball 3. The defense is responsible for knowing the situation and playing appropriately.

 

[CoachCeetar]

That response wasnt to the original post, it was directed toward the most recent post about calling a batter runner out who was running on strike 3 with 1st base occupied. There is no need to try and dig through the rulebook trying to work around the rule, that entire section of the rule is specific to retired offensive runners. The entire rule is prefaced with "After being declared out or after scoring". Everything in that rule is dealing specifically with that qualifying statement.

As per the original play, I just responded to that as well. There is no direct rule or case play regarding that situation, but it follow in line with the case play on a batter advancing on ball 3. The defense is responsible for knowing the situation and playing appropriately.

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