One more "you make the call"

Runner on 1st with less than 2 outs. The batter swings and misses strike 3. The catcher catches the ball clean, but the batter starts running towards first base. The runner gets about half way down the line when the catcher attempts a pick off to first base and hits the just struck out batter in the back...what is the call? Is the baserunner between 1st and home guilty of an infraction? If so, is the base runner at first base out due to the infraction? Since the batter struck out she, in my opinion, has no right to run the bases and is therefore guilty of something.

 

My guess is the batter/runner should be called for obstruction base runner out !!!!!

 

Dead ball....... runner returns to 1st...

 

You can't call the batter for obstruction.

However, you can (and IMHO, should) call her for interference. Especially if in fair territory, and in this case (since she's out) even in foul territory.

And once you call interference, someone's got to be out. And since this player is already out... the runner closest to getting home is out.

In ASA this (if in the proper running lane) would be Rule 7 Section 7 P

Note the D3K exception only applies to drawing the throw, not getting in the way of it.​

 

Thanks..I was hoping the baserunner would be out also. I have seen kids run all the way through the bag at first even though the catcher caught the third strike...never quite figured that one out.

 

...I've experienced this gig. I didn't know the rule then anymore than I know it now other than what Jeffro posted. Nice post BTW.
So, is this correct.....if a kid is on 1st, and the batter strikes out, and the batter runs to 1st, then the catcher attempts to pick off the runner at 1st, and slings the ball into rightfield, the call from the ump would be to call out the runner at 1st?

If thats the case, and BTW, I agree with it, I'd have my catcher throw the ball, without malice or intent to harm, dead in the center of the batters back if she ran to 1st after striking out.
What do you have to lose?

Fish

 

Not quite. Note the exception... drawing the throw in this case is explicitly not interference, per this exception. However, interfering with the throw IS interference.

So... if the ball goes straight to right field because the catcher made a poor throw, then the offense got what they wanted, and the runner on first can scamper off to second as the batter trots back to the dugout.

What I was trying to say is if the runner interferes with (e.g. by getting hit by) what would have been a good throw to the first baseman, then IMHO, it doesn't matter if she's in the running lane or not (whereas if she weren't already out, being in the running lane would have absolved her).

And my DD's team just played one that seems to coach every batter to run through first on the third strike, whether first is occupied or not (or whether or not the ball is securely in the catcher's glove).

 

I was wrong...

Okay, I have to post a correction to something I said here (sorry to drag up an old thread..)

I was in an umpiring discussion where this came up. While I argued my viewpoint from above, the concensus was that even if she gets hit with the throw, this is still NOT inteference. Why not? Because... she didn't interefere with a play. There was not a valid play at first, so the retired batter just got in the way of a throw that had no consequence and thus was not interference.

The fact that the lead runner has passed second and is now likely running to third should just serve as a potent reminder to the catcher that throwing to FIRST on a D3K with fewer than two outs and a runner on first is a dumb move. SECOND is where that throw goes.

So, basically, the exception allways applies. The retired batter isn't guilty of interference.

 

There was a play at first in my original post. I would even argure that if the ball did not hit the runner between home and first it should still be interference if the catcher had to throw around the runner.