Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan
I know there's a case play about a batter heading to first base on ball three, instead of ball four. It's 3.6.13(B).
And it's a rather Draconian case play. It says that if the umpire judges this to be an intentional act (mind reader?) he can eject the player!
I've wondered if this same ruling could apply when a batter runs on an uncaught strike two. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Both involve a batter running to first base, mimicking a batter-runner, when not entitled to, apparently to gain some sort of advantage over the defense.
|
I don't see why we couldn't use the guidance in FED case play 8.1.1.B, where the umpire announces forcefully, "BATTER'S OUT!" when she can't run to first on the U3K. That's what I've done in the past. I simply say out loud, "THAT'S BALL 3!" or "THAT'S STRIKE 2!" when the batter takes off and her at-bat isn't completed.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
|