Worst rule in softball: Dropped Third Strike?

[Greenmonsters]

so a ball in the dirt that does not hit the runner, is that one dead too? I mean when do you cut that off, in front of the batters box? In front of the plate, in front of the catcher? One more thing for the ump to make a judgment call on? Ball hit in front of the plate, dead ball so return your baserunner back to third and the run didn't count because the ball was dead?

I'm not saying you're wrong, cuz you aren't, but you do know that you're replying to a post made over 3 years ago, right?!!!

 

[chinamigarden]

I'm not saying you're wrong, cuz you aren't, but you do know that you're replying to a post made over 3 years ago, right?!!!

I be danged, I was not aware. I guess that little pitcher is 12 now and not throwing them in front of the plate any longer.

 

[BretMan]

If after the third strike that is dropped....and the runner takes off towards first even though the base is occupied that is interference and draws the throw to first.....this may "prevents the defense from making a play" to get R1 out. It is interference and the retired runner interference happens in this manner the runner CLOSEST to the plate is out (along with the batter who struck out.

No, Matt, that is not correct.

As we said back in 2010, a retired player running, after having been put out, is not in itself an act of interference. The retired player must actually in some way impede or hinder the defense's opportunity to make an out.

Suppose that the runner on first is just standing on the base when this happens. If the catcher throws, there is no realistic chance that the throw would have resulted in an out. We don't reward the defense with an out when no out was reasonably imminent.

Even if R1 was off the base and scrambling back, if the catcher sails the ball into right field, it's just a bad throw by the catcher. Since the bad throw had no chance of retiring the runner, again the defense is not rewarded with an out.

If the runner was scambling back, and the throw would have been catchable, but it hits the runner and prevents the catch, then the retired batter has actually impeded the defense's chance to record an out. In that case, it is interference and we give the defense the out that they actually may have earned.

In any case, there is no "automatic out" charged just because the retired batter ran.

 

[Mylil32]

Although I do hate the rule, it's really only a problem in 12U and below and in the long run, it makes the catcher better. In 14U and up, it's less and less of an issue because it really doesn't happen often.