default
Member
So....1 out, R1 on 3rd base, R2 on 1st base. Batter swings and misses for strike 3 and catcher catches the pitch without the ball touching the ground. The batter takes off running to 1st base. The umpire yells "Batter is out" but the runner keeps on going. The catcher, a 4.0+ student who has memorized the rulebook, throws the ball toward 1st base and hits the batter-runner in the back. The umpire cannot determine whether hitting the runner was intentional but she is grinning at her coach like a Cheshire cat.
So, the strike-out would be out #2 and the out caused by the interference would be out #3, correct?
The reason I ask is because a highly intelligent HS catcher that I personally know ask put this scenario to me.
When the catcher threw to first base, was her throw part of an effort to retire a runner? Was there an active runner off her base that could have been thrown out?
If "yes"...then the retired batter is guilty of interference. Dead ball, runner closest to home out on the interference by a retired player.
If "no"...then the retired batter did not interfere with anything (ie: an opportunity for the defense to make an out). Live ball, play on.
If the catcher's throw is judged as designed to purposely hit the retired batter, rather than complete the play at first base, there would be no interference- and maybe even malicious contact by the catcher. It would have to be pretty obvious and blatant that the throw was away from the base and at the batter to make that call. But it is a possibility! If the throw is anywhere in the vicinity of being catchable at first base, give the defense the benefit of the doubt and call the interference.