Dropped 3rd strike Train Wreck

[Bretman]

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.

[BearFlagFan]

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).

I disagree. The word "entitled" was added so umpires didn't think there was an automatic exemption on all dropped-third-strikes, which for practical purposes is how most umpires end up ruling (or not ruling) on such plays. They ignore whether the batter is entitled to run when there's a dropped third strike and blame it on the catcher as a DMC.

The clarification is exactly as Coach Blue described - In the original example for this post, the person running to 1B isn't a batter-runner, by rule she's a "retired runner." She is not entitled to 1B. Therefore the NOTE exemption doesn't apply to her. She's a retired runner.

It is still up to the umpire to determine if interference took place. But ump now has a rule that says the mere act of running (see note on 8-7P) can be considered interference.

When I asked a very wise UIC I know who is a top official in both ASA and NFHS in my area, he had the most practical answer. He said, "Short of 18 Gold or championship play - just kill the play under 10-3C. It'll save a lot of arguing." The other thing he said was if you do call it, be sure to state "in my judgment there was interference." The UIC may disagree with the umpire's basic ruling, but by rule the protest can't proceed as it hinges on the umpires judgment.

[Comp]

I caught this change in wording shortly after the new rule books came out and immediately inquired of the local UIC if the way this was ruled was to be changed. He went up the chain in ASA requesting clarification and as yet there has not been any response. There has also been no clarifications issued by ASA that would change the way this has been ruled on in the past.

[MTR]

I disagree. The word "entitled" was added so umpires didn't think there was an automatic exemption on all dropped-third-strikes, which for practical purposes is how most umpires end up ruling (or not ruling) on such plays. They ignore whether the batter is entitled to run when there's a dropped third strike and blame it on the catcher as a DMC.

And those umpires are correct.

The clarification is exactly as Coach Blue described - In the original example for this post, the person running to 1B isn't a batter-runner, by rule she's a "retired runner." She is not entitled to 1B. Therefore the NOTE exemption doesn't apply to her. She's a retired runner.

No, she was never a BR or a R to begin, so how can she be a retired anything, but batter? The "note" cannot apply to anyone but a retired batter since it is impossible for any other player to not be entitled to run. So, until they remove the exception, that is the way it will be called.

When I asked a very wise UIC I know who is a top official in both ASA and NFHS in my area, he had the most practical answer. He said, "Short of 18 Gold or championship play - just kill the play under 10-3C. It'll save a lot of arguing." The other thing he said was if you do call it, be sure to state "in my judgment there was interference." The UIC may disagree with the umpire's basic ruling, but by rule the protest can't proceed as it hinges on the umpires judgment.

That's chicken shit reasoning. The rule isn't different based upon level or age, so there needs to be one interpretation. There was a person who is high up the chain of command who showed up for one of his first "clinics" as a guest. He was giving INT and used the example of a BR running into a defender waiting to catch a pop up over fair territory. After the defender was flattened, the ball dropped and rolled into foul territory. The ruling offered by this high ranking individual, ignore the INT and rule a foul ball because is will "save a lot of arguing". More than half the umpires in the room looked at each other and just shook their head. They all knew that was a bad ruling.

Maybe we should just make whatever ruling will cause the least headaches and to hell with the coaches, players and game.

OTOH, I would not be surprised to see a change in direction in the interpretation, but until that time comes, it is what it is and using 10.3.C in this case is an extremely slippery slope and may bring the intergrity of the umpire into question.

[Anti-Clone]

PONY Softball does not allow batter-runners to just run around the bases when they are out. Nothing in the PONY rule book allows a retired batter to run to 1st base and even continue to run to 2nd base. Why not 3rd? Go for in inside-the-parker home run on a strike out? Nonsense. Base coaches are responsible to COACHING the runners. They are supposed to uphold the integrity of the game, even when the players aren't.

I'm glad that ASA and PONY have similar rules on this issue, since none of the ASA clones bothered to even look in the PONY rule book before posting. Shame on you.

[MTR]

PONY Softball does not allow batter-runners to just run around the bases when they are out.

Neither does anyone else

Nothing in the PONY rule book allows a retired batter to run to 1st base

Don't really care about PONY rules, but can you site where it refers to a retired player continuing to run?

and even continue to run to 2nd base. Why not 3rd? Go for in inside-the-parker home run on a strike out? Nonsense.

You are right, utter nonsense. Of course, it would be nice if anyone knew what you are talking about.

Base coaches are responsible to COACHING the runners. They are supposed to uphold the integrity of the game, even when the players aren't.

I'm glad that ASA and PONY have similar rules on this issue, since none of the ASA clones bothered to even look in the PONY rule book before posting.

NAFC

Shame on you.

Try providing some substance.

[Anti-Clone]

Don't really care about PONY rules, but can you site where it refers to a retired player continuing to run?

It was a PONY tournament genius. It is often helpful to go to the rule book that is to be applied in order to answer the question correctly; not surprisingly, just another ASA clone turning it into a conversation about ASA rules.

[Anti-Clone]

How come know it all umpires use the "show me in the rule book where it says that" argument rather than using the "show me where in the rule book it says someone can do something" argument?

Umpires looking to appease coaches and afraid to step up and make a real decision love to say "It doesn't say that in the rule book. Show me something specific." Real umpires who know how to support other umpires and control a game will use appropriate discretion and enforce what isn't specifically in the book. That's one of the reasons we get paid.

[playball13]

This discussion lost me a while ago.
I think a 'retired' batter has to be allowed to run to first without penality.
Scenario: R1 at 3B, 0 outs. Batter swings at a low pitch in the dirt PU calls batter out but does not see ball hit dirt. Obvious to 1B coach who tells 'retired' batter to run to first. Once on first, 1B coach then asks PU to ask FU for help as ball hit ground.
So are people saying this should be INT on the 'retired' batter if the C throws to 1B and R1 scores if FU did not see it hit the ground? Does the 1B coach have to check if the FU is pointing to the ground (is this a real mechanic?) before having his batter run to first or possibly lose R1 on a INT call?

[Bretman]

Interesting.

A post urging umpires to check the rule book for a specific rule...

It is often helpful to go to the rule book that is to be applied in order to answer the question correctly.

Followed by another post admonishing umpires for using the rule book...

Real umpires who know how to support other umpires and control a game will use appropriate discretion and enforce what isn't specifically in the book.

Well...I guess that you have all of the bases covered...