NFHS Rules: Twoo outs, bases loaded, uncaught third strike.
 

The title gives the situation.

Question: F2 fields the uncaught third strike and forgets that all he has to do is touch HP for the third out and instead throws to F3 at 1B to retire the B/R who is running to 1B. F2 airmails his throw to F3 into Right Field. During F2's throw to F3 he unknowingly steps on HP while still in possession of the Ball. Do we have a tied out at HP or a Live Ball?

This play did not happen to Mark, Jr. or me but came up during a war story discussion. Mark and I would also like opinions per NCAA and OBR. I am watching Mark umpire right now and really do nor feel like hiking back to the car to check caebook plays but do believe it will make for a good discussion.

Thank you in advance.

MTD, Sr.

I would say, yes, the runner coming from 3rd is out. Motive is irrelevant. He stepped on the plate while in possession of the ball and the force play is invoked at that instant. Trying to read motives is a slippery slope anyway... This is the 3rd out and the inning is over.

NFHS 8-4-2-j
The runner is out when he fails to reach the next base before a fielder either tags the runner out or holds the ball while touching such base, after runner has been forced from the base he occupied because the batter became a runner (with ball in play) when other runners were on first base, or on first and second, or on first, second and third. There shall be no accidental appeals on a force play.


Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes, it's an out. While there are no "accidental appeals" there can be "accidental force outs."

Good point

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

What prompted the start of this thread was I was watching the replay of a VAR baseball game on our cable company's local sports channel and F2 did NOT touch HP while airmaIing his throw over F3's head into Right Field. F9 fielded F2's errant throw and proceeded to throw the ball over F5's head into Dead Ball territory with the runner that had started on 1B between 2B and 3B, and the B/R between 2B and 3B.

I want you all to sit down before reading anyour further. The umpires (2-man crew) huddled and decided that the Batter was out because 1B was occupied! :eek:

MTD, Sr.

And no protest?

Most (?) states do not allow protests of HS games.

The OhioHSAA and the MichiganHSAA (the two states that Mark, Jr., are registered in) do not allow protests.

As F2 was attempting to throw the B/R out at 1B the "talking heads" were claiming that the Batter was out because 1B was occupied (what the hell do they know about the rules). The "talking heads" then claimed that the umpires were going to huddle which they did from what I could see and the channel then cut to a commercial. When it came back to the game the "talking heads" said the that the umpires had ruled that the Batter was out. They only way per rule the Batter could be out is if F2 inadvertently stepped on HP before releasing the ball on his throw to F3. The video did not have a good look at whether F2 stepped on or did not step on HP when he made his throw but the umpires allowed the runners run the bases and the fielders make plays on the runners.

I have talked with our assigner and he was going to review the game tape. I told him that I would gladly be corrected if F2 had stepped on HP and the video did not show it.

The irony is that last year the local sports channel showed VAR softball game where the PU awarded the batter 1B after striking out because the pitch hit her while she was swinging at the ball. The bad part was that the sports channel kept its camera and mic on the PU and the defensive coach as the PU told the DC why the batter was being awarded 1B. And our assigner was watching the game on TV. :eek:

MTD, Sr.

Whenever I am the PU and this situation exists I always look for the catcher to step on the plate, even inadvertently.
As someone already states an appeal has to be obvious and intentional but not so with a force out.

Even a "within the game" protest as opposed to an "up the chain" protest? There's no way to force a look at the rule book?

That would be allowed in 10-1-4 and should be addressed. It won't force a look at the rulebook but it should cause two umps together to talk about the rule. Recent communications from my state cause me concern about two umps getting it right. But, in my state the remedy is a rule missaplication report to the state authority. Then if correct, which most are not, the umpire chapter involved deals with correcting the involved umpires. I don't know how that works.

Perhaps the BR was ruled out on a RLI violation despite the drivel from the "talking heads."

I'm going to give you a minute to think about this sentence and decide whether to delete it or fix it.

:)

There's no way to force it, no. No protests here in WI, either.

This is the same question I have. It very well could have been RLI since Fed does not require a quality throw.