Coach Blue wrote:The Note to Rule 8.7-P in the ASA 2012 Manual states that the interference rule on an offensive player who has already been put out or scored does not apply to a batter-runner who is ENTITLED to run by the dropped third strike rule (keyword is ENTITLED).
This just illustrates how ambiguous and redundant the "clarification" note at the end of that rule really is.
What it is saying is that the rule about a retired offensive player causing interference does not apply to an offensive player who has not been retired (ie: a batter-runner entitled to run).
Well....duh...you don't say? Of course that rule doesn't apply to a player that doesn't fit the criteria of the rule. Why would you need to clarify that? But this same "exception" has been in the rule book forever (albeit, mysteriously modified somewhat in it's wording beginning this year). To date, there has been no change in the interpretation issued to the umpires that I'm aware of (and I do stay aware of that stuff), despite the change in wording.
All I can surmise is that the same old interpretation is still in effect. If a retired batter runs to first base on a third strike (that is, when not entitled to), the act of running alone is not automatically interference. For it to become interference, the retired batter must actually interfere with an actual attempt by the defense to retire an active runner who was already on base.