how would you ruled this?

[Greenmonsters]

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.

 

[BretMan]

Yes, that argument could be made...but it would be a baseless and futile argument!

Kind of a silly question: "Where in the rule book does it say that the defense can't be dumb?". The silly response would be, "Where does it say they can?". Do you really expect a rule like that to be in there?

And remember, there is a rule that specifically says it's NOT interference if a retired batter runs toward first base on a caught third strike.

The premise behind awarding an out for interference is that it is an equitable penalty if you do something that prevents an out. Hence the rule book definition that interference must impede an attempt to retire a runner (that is, an opportunity to actually record an out). If there is no out to be had (as in your sample play at first base), then you can't say that an out was prevented.

We don't just randomly hand out free outs based on the assumption that the defender though they knew what they were doing! A real possibility of an out being recorded has to exist before you can say that the opportunity to record an out was impeded.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

And remember, there is a rule that specifically says it's NOT interference if a retired batter runs toward first base on a caught third strike.

Actually, the rule says for the "dropped third strike rule." Applying that Note for retired batters is problematic. Can you explain why 1) the rule exception says batter-runner and they are entitled to run 2) a retired batter is not expected to know the game situation, but the defense is?

Throwing the ball after catching the third strike would be really dumb.