Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Seems pretty clear to me; with no runners and no batter-runner, there cannot be an attempted putout.
|
ok then explain it to me cause I am VERY confused why if there can't be an attempted putout without a runner or batter runner then why is that listed in the rule?
Quote:
The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout, a put out or an attempted put out made by the catcher.
EXCEPTION: Does not apply with a runner(s) on base or the batter becoming a batter-runner.
If there wasn't a chance for an attempted put out then it wouldn't be in the rule would it? What is the purpose of having that in the rule if it could never apply? What by defination is an attempted put out? That is what I am getting at with the requested rule reference, and where my judgement comes into effect. I judge that throw to first with a batter running as an attempted put out, where in the rules does it say that I am wrong?
And to your question about the INT, I believe that there is wording in the INT rule that specifies they have to INT with a play, which is clearer to me than this situation. There also is not an advantage given the offense as a result of their actions as there would be in this play. INT on throw back to F1 with no one on, slight delay of game while someone gets F1 the ball (worst case). F2 throw to F3 when batter running, I give the batter a ball, probably ball 4 and award first base. Again doesn't seem right to me. I will conceed if I can be proven wrong, I am just not convinced yet. Again I judge that the throw was an attempted put out thus no penalty. Where is there a defination of an attempted put out that proves I misinterperted the rule?