NFHS new Case Play
 

*8.2.7 SITUATION B:

The leadoff hitter has a 3-2 count. There is a check-swing situation and the plate umpire calls ball four. The base umpire reverses the call on appeal and calls strike three. B1 overruns first base. In (a), the defense tags the batter/runner returning to first base. In (b, the defense tags the batter/runner after the batter/runner attempts to go to second base before returning to first base.

RULING: In (a), the batter/runner is safe. In (b), the batter/runner is out.

Without reading anything into the case, and without making any assumptions, and without adding anything that isn't there, can anyone tell me why in (a) the batter/runner is safe? I'd say he's out on strikes.

And why was the ball at 1B?

Sloppily written (shocker)...this case only makes sense if the final pitch is uncaught on the fly.

“On the fly” makes your post a little sloppily written at least to me. But we know what they and you meant.

I'm not sure what the point of this case play is.

Isn't the B/R on a uncaught third strike always allowed to overrun 1st base? Wouldn't he always be liable to be put out if instead of simply overrunning, he made an attempt at second?

I don't see what this case play is attempting to clarify.

Up until this year, under NFHS rules, B/R was liable to be tagged out if he overran first base on a base on balls. That's no longer the case.

The problem typically arose when we had a check-swing with a 3-2 count on a pitch in the dirt that was originally ruled a swing (strike 3) but was changed to ball 4 on appeal.

PS: I've never seen this happen, probably because the defense had no idea that this was a rule and never tagged the B/R past 1st base. I also suspect that if that had happened, very few umpires would have known that rule either.

You can not "say he's out on strikes," without also "reading anything into the case, and without making any assumptions, and without adding anything that isn't there."

Your point that the case could be better written is valid.

You can't change it to a ball if it was originally ruled a strike

That scenario was presented by Kyle McNeely this weekend at the TASO State Baseball Meeting as an example for why the change was made.

If so, then he was wrong, too.

The usual scenario is that the pitch is called a ball, but BR runs anyway just in case it's reversed. When it's not, BR was liable to be tagged out if he overran.

The case said it was changed to strike 3. The case did NOT say it was uncaught. So saying out on strikes is true unless you read into the play and assume that it was uncaught.

And nobody questioned it?
The 2 most common situations would be the 3-2 check swing on a ball in the dirt or dropped appealed to a ball and a wild pitch ball four. There is also the casual step past 1B where the B-R would be at risk also if anyone knew the rule before the change.

What scenario -- changing a strike to a ball on appeal?

Please tell me that isn't so.

Honestly, I'm probably not remembering correctly what he said and this is it. So I'll withdraw my comment for now. I will send him an email for clarification.

Yet at the same time, saying safe is true unless you read into the play and assume that it was caught.