Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
If it was "loudly and clearly" announced, then I wonder why the defense would make a throw. Wouldn't the defense be aware of the game situation? Wouldn't they realize that the batter who was just "loudly and clearly" called out is, in fact, already out and that a throw isn't needed?
In this case, it's only interference if the retired batter actually interferes with a play to retire one of the active runners already on base. A throw to "re-retire" the batter who has already been called out isn't interference. Since the batter is already out, a throw to first to "get the batter" is not a legitimate attempt to record an out, because there isn't one available there. It's just a dumb move by the defense.
I don't disagree and think this thread has run its course and should be put to bed. But I still think the following arguement could be made.
Rule 1 "INTERFERENCE. The act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary."
The batter/runner's actions clearly are intended to confuse the defense and that meets the rule book definition of interference.
Where in the rule book does it say that the defense can't be "dumb"? Although the throw to first in that situation technically isn't needed, the catcher obviously thinks it is or else they wouldn't make the throw. And where is "legitimate" defined in the context of a play? A late throw to a base, a throw to the base with the runner standing on the base, and the catcher's throw to first base in this instance are all attempts to record an out whether they are necessary, ill-advised, or not required.