BretMan is telling you that, by rule, running on an uncaught third strike is not interference.Are you telling me that a runner that was tagged out at third can then get up and run for home, in an attempt to draw a throw?
BretMan is telling you that, by rule, running on an uncaught third strike is not interference.Are you telling me that a runner that was tagged out at third can then get up and run for home, in an attempt to draw a throw?
The batter was out, by rule, whether the umpire uttered those magic words or not. It is a recommened umpire mechanic to announce the batter is out if she begins running when not entitled to, just to head off this kind of confusion. But it is not required and has no bearing on the actual rule or ruling. The batter is out just the same, no matter what the umpire said or didn't say.
The defense has the responsibility to know the situation and react to it accordingly- that is, to not make unecessary throws to retire an already retired batter and to instead play upon the other active runners who are legally advancing. If they make a bad throw, or ignore the other runners...their bad.
A retired batter running when not entitled to on an uncaught third strike is NOT interference. The rules specifically address this and clearly state that the act of running, alone and in itself, is NOT to be ruled as interference. The only way this can be ruled as interference is if the retired batter actually interferes with the defense making a play on one of the other runners. An example would be if the runner on first base was trying to dive back to the bag and the throw there hit the retired batter. A throw toward first base that is not part of an effort to retire one of the other active runners is nothing more than an ill-advised throw.
BretMan is telling you that, by rule, running on an uncaught third strike is not interference.
I'm not going to quote the whole rule, but it states that interference should be called when...obstructs,impedes,hinders, or confuses fielder attempting to make a play. A batter running to first after a strikeout has to be by definition an attempt to confuse team. Are we talking semantics, I don't understand what I'm missing here it seems cut and dry to me.
ASA 8-7-P. See your other thread.
I've been hoping that GI Tom would come back and give us his reasoning for the no-call. As my post above may have suggested, as far as I can see this is black-letter obstruction.
For those calling this ridiculous, or referring to the batter-runner as Red Riding Hood, consider:
1) The batter swung at strike 3, and headed for her dugout. That's perfectly normal, particularly if she didn't see the ball skip.
2) She was then alerted by her bench that she could run to first.
3) She DID run to first, in a straight line from where she was. Isn't that what she should do?
What, exactly, did the batter do wrong? And regardless of that, is there any rule support for not calling obstruction under those circumstances?
3. That I'm being defended by a Yankees fan convinces me that we all can get along. Along those lines, how about the 3 of us get together and go to the next scheduled Fidelco Seeing Eye Dog/Handgun Giveaway Night game in the Bronx?
You couldn't pay me to go to a MLB ball game unless the stadium was worth seeing. Now that Yankee Stadium is gone, there is no reason to go within the confines of the five boroughs. The last time I attended an MLB game, it was at Wrigley (I was there to see the ballpark), and four umpires couldn't get a simple INT call right that a first year softball umpire who has attended the appropriate clinics could have handled.
But you can agree to disagree all you want, you would be wrong. As absurd as you think it is, it is an extremely easy OBS call as described. You don't have to like it, the rules are not made for the spectators, but to protect the players on the field and the game being played.