Interesting Call

I have looked at the rule book and feel I understand the rule clearly.

Runner on 1st One out

Batter takes 3rd strike, catcher drops the ball.

Runner on first takes off and steals to second.

The batter runs towards first even though she is out because the base was occupied. Catcher throws ball wild to first and gets past first baseman.

Runner has advanced from 2nd to 3rd at this point.

Umpire calls interference on the batter, even though she did not get hit by the throw, or get in the way of the throw.

Umpire calls Batter out, like she should be, but them makes the runner return to 1st.

Here is how NFHS rulebook reads:

8.6.18
After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

This is from the Casebook:

8.6.18 SITUATION: With R1 on first base and one out, B3 is at the plate with a 3-2 count. The pitch is swung at and missed. F2 drops the ball and B3 runs to first base even though first base is occupied. F2 throws the ball to first in an attempt to pick off R1, who is diving back to first base. The ball hits B3 in the back and ricochets into the dugout. RULING: With first base occupied and less than two outs, B3 is out on strike three. Therefore, she has interfered with F2’s throw to first base. The ball is dead and R1 (the runner closest to home) is ruled out for the third out.


I guess I am looking for more clarity on this rule.

 

Since the play on R1 would have been at 2nd and not first, I can see the call since the B/R intentionally drew a throw to 1st. It might seem like a stretch but I can see the interference call, IF the umpire yelled OUT on the third strike.

 

You've got pretty good clarity on the rule. Even if the ball had hit the retired batter going to first, there are umpires that still wouldn't call it interference because there was no play to be made at first. In the case play, not only did the batter actually get in the way of the throw, there was a play to be made at first, so the casebook play satisfies both conditions for interference.

I don't care if the umpire did call OUT, per the book "This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule." Now, if you want to get snitty, there really isn't a batter-runner here because the B-R is out, but if the B-R wasn't out then she has every reason to be running and no chance it would be interference because... she not out.

Well coached catchers throw to SECOND BASE in this situation to get the double play.

 

If the plate ump clearly called her out, is not her running to first a "travesty of the game"?

 

I think you are getting hung up on the part of the rule that says it does not apply to a runner when the dropped third strike rule is in effect. In your play although its a dropped third strike the rule is not in effect because first base was occuppied with less then two outs so the runner has no right to advance. When a runner has no right to advance then a throw drawn by that runner is now considered interference and it does not matter if the runner is hit by the ball going to first outside the three foor lane as it does when the b-r has the right to advance.
Hope this helps

 

Absolutely not. The runner may not hear the umpire. I can't tell you how many times I have called IFF batters out loud and clear but nobody ever hears it.

 

So is the correct call to have the runner return to the original base, or should she be out as well?

 

Batter is out on strikes and the runner closest to home is out for the interference by the batter, which is R1 who was on first at the time of the pitch.

I see your Situation and raise you 8.1.1 SITUATION B: With less then two outs and R1 on first base, F2 drops B2's third strike. B2 begins running to first base, F2 attempts to throw B2 out and overthrows F3.
RULING: As soon as B2 starts to run to first, the umpire shall forcefully announce that B2 is out (because of the third strike and first base being occuppied.) The ball remains live.

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 says nothing then B2 may be guilty of interference for merely drawing the throw to first and if interference is ruled then R1 should be called out as well, as she is the closest runner to home plate.

 

2011 Page 5

 

I found it in the comments on the rules section thanks.

look at my previous post to see a variation to the play in question.