|
This whole business, is, I think, a perfect example of when an umpire should use judgement and common sense.
In the case of the count being 3-1, pitch in the dirt, batter having nicked the ball, and the batter running to first (no other runners), and then the catcher throwing to F3, I would *not* call a ball on that one, at least at the outset. I'd just say "foul ball" very loudly, and call the batter back to the box. Now, on the one-hand, the batter is trying to deceive the catcher, which might be technically OK, but it's kinda dirty pool in my book, so I'm not going to give any benefit to the offense. But on the other hand, the strict rule of the law requires that I call a ball in this case. I will call a ball if and only if the offense pipes up and complains about it. This is OK, because they are then appealing what is actually a mis-interpretation of the rules, which they are allowed to do. I will make a visible sigh, point out to the defensive coach that the offensive coach is in fact correct, and say "Ball Four".
However, if we have the same case with the count 3-2, you can safely assume that the batter *and* the catcher thought it was a dropped third strike - I would call "foul ball" (the correct call, btw), and return the batter. Now, if the offense pipes up, I'd say "he didn't know it was a foul ball until I called it". If the offense *still* wants to protest, let him.
The more I see it, the less I like this rule. I think it should be re-written similar to what I posted a few days ago.
Shmuel
|