Interesting Call

Why would it matter if the umpire announced the out or not? I don't follow.

 

I knew someone was going to say it. Perhaps this is another case of bad rulebook editing, but let's take the whole thing at face value.

8.6.18 says "After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's..." then it says "This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule." There's enough ambiguity here to fuel arguments for 10 years.

1) There's no need for the exception for a runner who is NOT YET OUT because the 1B is unoccupied and the third strike is on the ground, so why put it there unless they meant it didn't apply to a runner who IS out but the defense hasn't figured that out yet.

2) But, they said "batter-runner." If the batter was out on the 3rd strike because 1B was occupied, then they're not a "batter-runner," they're a retired batter.

3) See #1.

4) See #2.

Commonly accepted practice has been that unless the runner actually interferes with the throw by (1) getting hit [nearly all authorities agree] or (2) being in the way and causing a wild throw [much more dubious], then she is absolutely not guilty of interference. Again, some very respected umpires argue that there is no play at 1B to interfere with unless the runner at first is diving back (which is that the first case book citation applies to). No play = No inteference, so even getting hit in the back won't get interference.

With all due respect, your quote of 8.1.1 SITUATION B doesn't say that the batter is guilty (or not guilty) of interference, it just says the umpire should announce the out.

 

It does say the ball remains live and if interference was implied the ball would be dead immediately. I believe since there is no definitive authoritative opinion on this specific play the reason for saying the batters out is to keep the defense from being confused and if the catcher throws after the declaration then she does so at her own risk and if the batter is hit by the throw then the runner closest to home is out because intent is not required anymore for the interference call on a retired runner. If there is no declaration by the umpire then the batter has confused the defense and interference may be ruled due to the retired runner drawing the throw under rule 8.6.18

 

My comment would be that the players are always supposed to know what the situation is (strike/ball count, Infield Fly Rule, and yes, D3K) and react accordingly. (Frankly, I disagree on the IFR, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and no one cares that I disagree.) F2, whether or not the umpire calls the OUT, should know that the batter is out. The runner on 1B should know that a trip to 2B is a stolen base attempt. Even if the PU doesn't realize that the batter was out until the defensive coach politely reminds him of the rule, F2 is pretty safe going to 2B with the throw.

The umpire does need to exercise care that he NOT call the strike 3 out in situations where the D3K is available, and given the time it takes to let the ball hit F2's glove, make the strike call and then get around to making the OUT call, any F2 worth her salt is going to be letting the ball fly if the runner is going to 2B before he can finish saying it.

 

I agree that players are supposed to know the situation and the rules, but NFHS also has verbal interference and verbal obstruction which implies HS players are easily confused and need all the mental assistance the rules will allow.


I have thought about my posts and feel I may have been in error when I wrote, "So, if the umpire says forcefully that B2 is out and F2 still throws the ball to first base the runner would have to be hit by the ball to be ruled interference."

If the umpire announces the batter is out and then the catcher throws the ball to first base when there are no runners returning to first base there would be no interference.

By saying the retired batter would have to be hit by the throw without a play at first base would encourage catchers to intentionally throw at retired batters who run to first base, and I don't think that is what the rules committee intended by this rule change.