Missed Third Strike & Abandonment

[tibear]

Situation: R3, 1 Out. Left handed batter swings and misses third strike, catcher misses the ball and the ball go to the backstop. I make the call, "Strike Three, no catch".

R3 is stealing home on the play, the batter, rather then running for first takes about 5 or 6 steps backwards towards the dugout and watches the play at the plate. After a second or two he finally realizes he is able to steal first and then runs safely to first. There is no "home plate circle".

Once the play ends the defensive manager questions why the batter wasn't automatically out because he had no intention of running to first immediately after the thrid strike and in fact had backed towards his dugout so this should be interpreted as abandonement.

I said that I didn't see the batter as abandoning the stealing apportunity but rather was vacating home plate area and then realized he was entitled to steal first.

With no home plate circle, did I make the right call or should the batter have been out.

[LMan]

OBR, its now 'dirt circle.' In your case I'd say this was a judgment call on your part, since there was no circle marked.

FED, the batter's still OK until he enters the dugout/DBT.

Why didn't F2 throw to 1B when the batter eventually started that way?

And, ST is right. You can't steal first. Unless it's not bolted down.

Originally Posted by tibear

Situation: R3, 1 Out. Left handed batter swings and misses third strike, catcher misses the ball and the ball go to the backstop. I make the call, "Strike Three, no catch".

R3 is stealing home on the play, the batter, rather then running for first takes about 5 or 6 steps backwards towards the dugout and watches the play at the plate. After a second or two he finally realizes he is able to steal first and then runs safely to first. There is no "home plate circle".

Once the play ends the defensive manager questions why the batter wasn't automatically out because he had no intention of running to first immediately after the thrid strike and in fact had backed towards his dugout so this should be interpreted as abandonement.

I said that I didn't see the batter as abandoning the stealing apportunity but rather was vacating home plate area and then realized he was entitled to steal first.

With no home plate circle, did I make the right call or should the batter have been out.

You got the call right. The only thing you did wrong was use the words "no catch". It's up to the offensive team to figure out that the ball wasn't caught and the defensive team to figure a play needs to be made at first. If the ball is caught, you can say "strike three, batter's out". Saying "no catch" is coaching the offensive team.

[UmpJM]

BigGuy,

I beg to differ on the "no catch".

Remember, it's not whether the catcher caught the pitch - it's whether the umpire judged he did. How's anyone supposed to know if the umpire doesn't tell them.

Since the Eddings fiasco in the ALCS, the "no catch" verbalization is being taught.

JM

[blueump]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I've never heard of a steal of first, but if in your judgment the batter didn't abandon his right to run on the play, the coach was crying over spilled milk.

"Judgment" and "abandoning his effort" has nothing to do with it in FED ball. The batter has the right to make his attempt for first base at anytime before he enters dead ball territory.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by blueump

"Judgment" and "abandoning his effort" has nothing to do with it in FED ball. The batter has the right to make his attempt for first base at anytime before he enters dead ball territory.

Not sure about FED, we only use OBR in Canada.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

You got the call right. The only thing you did wrong was use the words "no catch". It's up to the offensive team to figure out that the ball wasn't caught and the defensive team to figure a play needs to be made at first. If the ball is caught, you can say "strike three, batter's out". Saying "no catch" is coaching the offensive team.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Although I'd be likely to assume the "no catch" (and thus not verbalize it) was obvious if the ball went to the backstop. And, of course, I do call the batter out if he starts to run when he's not legally allowed to.

Originally Posted by CoachJM

BigGuy,

I beg to differ on the "no catch".

Remember, it's not whether the catcher caught the pitch - it's whether the umpire judged he did. How's anyone supposed to know if the umpire doesn't tell them.

Since the Eddings fiasco in the ALCS, the "no catch" verbalization is being taught.

JM

If the catcher is not sure, he tags - that is taught. If the umpire is sure, he says "batter's out!" Batters are taught to run. It is not up to the umpire to signal "no catch", and thus tell the batter "run". Let them figure it out for themselves.

The issue with the ALCS debacle is whether or not Eddings actually called Pierzynski "OUT" he appeared to give the "out" signal but then later on says no. There is no way whatsoever that he could be sure the ball was caught. The Angels catcher screwed up by not tagging just to make sure. Everybody assumed something. We all know where that gets us. I think Pierzynski also reacted to the fact there was NO CALL. All this means is that he reacted the way he was supposed to. Whatever you want to call it it was still smart baserunning on his part.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

If the catcher is not sure, he tags - that is taught. If the umpire is sure, he says "batter's out!" Batters are taught to run. It is not up to the umpire to signal "no catch", and thus tell the batter "run". Let them figure it out for themselves.

Heh, heh, heh.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Actually, it's just the opposite. Although I'd be likely to assume the "no catch" (and thus not verbalize it) was obvious if the ball went to the backstop. And, of course, I do call the batter out if he starts to run when he's not legally allowed to.

I think we mean the same thing, our perspectives are different. I could have just as easily said it the other way. I do call "batter's out". I don't say no catch.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

You are correct, Sir. However in perusing the post and knowing our original poster is from north of the border, I didn't believe a FED ruling to be necessary as they are an OBR country.

I caught that after the fact

I usually don't frequent enough to know where everyone is from yet... I thought that "north of the border" meant Michigan!

[tibear]

Everyone is right, I probably didn't have to say the no catch with the ball being at the backstop. But with the age of the players I felt it necessary for both the defense and offense to remind them of the situation.(12-13 year olds playing their first or second game of the year)

I always thought that the dropped third strike was to be treated like a missed base while baserunning. Something we take note of but don't verbalize. However, I thought the thinking had changed on that situation because of the MLB incident of a couple of years ago.

Does anyone have any authoritative sources which mandate either verbalizing or non-verbalizing this situation??

[LMan]

This might help:


Evans take on the Eddings Play

[tibear]

Thanks, it seems to indicate that a verbalization is preferred.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by tibear

Thanks, it seems to indicate that a verbalization is preferred.

That seems to be the trend in this case. I confess that I have not yet gotten to the verbalization point - after the Eddings stuff, I 'evolved' into making several emphatic 'safe' signals upon a D3K, but Im still working on opening my mouth about it

As far as calling 'batters out' when he cannot advance, I dont have a choice - our state manual specifies that we will do this. So we do.