NFHS intentional walk

[voiceoflg]

In ten years of broadcasting, here's something I haven't seen until last week.

NFHS, R3, two out. The pitcher steps off the rubber and tells the umpire that they want to walk the next 2 batters to make it a force out at any base. The first batter they walked just went directly to second without touching first, and the 2nd batter then went to 1st. The pitcher then appealed that the runner on 2nd never touched first and the out was called. Offense HC blamed the ump saying he should have not allowed the two walks at the same time. Ump said the runner should have touched first before going to second. I'm not sure about letting two be intentionally walked at the same time, but ultimately you have to touch first before touching second. Batter out.

Your thoughts?

[bob jenkins]

You can't appeal a missed base following an intentional walk. Once the second runner was awarded first, it was too late to appeal the first runner. The appeal would have been valid after the first runner touched second and before the second runner was awarded first.

8-2 Penalty

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You can't appeal a missed base following an intentional walk. Once the second runner was awarded first, it was too late to appeal the first runner. The appeal would have been valid after the first runner touched second and before the second runner was awarded first.

8-2 Penalty

Good point Bob.

-Josh

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

NFHS, R3, two out. The pitcher steps off the rubber and tells the umpire that they want to walk the next 2 batters to make it a force out at any base. The first batter they walked just went directly to second without touching first, and the 2nd batter then went to 1st. The pitcher then appealed that the runner on 2nd never touched first and the out was called. Offense HC blamed the ump saying he should have not allowed the two walks at the same time. Ump said the runner should have touched first before going to second. I'm not sure about letting two be intentionally walked at the same time, but ultimately you have to touch first before touching second. Batter out.

Your thoughts?

This is pure entrapment! So Fed lets the defense put the runners on without pitching to them, but still makes the offense touch the intermediate bases?! And then the pitcher tells the umpire they're putting the next 2 runners on and the umpire says OK, and by going along with the other team's and the umpire's apparent desire to speed up the game, the offense is penalized?! Darn stupid way to play a game.

Games are supposed to be about skill & wits, not stuff like this.

Robert

[PeteBooth]

Just like we do not except Future subs we should only deal with one IW at a time, however,

in actual practice if the DM wants to walk the next 2 batters simply telling the first batter to go DIRECTLY to second and the next batter to first is no big deal and saves Time. In FED the ball is dead on an IW so why waste time.

In addition to avoid the shenanigans I would tell the OM

"Skip #23 to second on the IW and number 24 to first on the IW" so that there is no problems. Also, as Bob pointed out once the second IW was granted the defense cannot appeal anyway.

Pete Booth

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

This is pure entrapment! So Fed lets the defense put the runners on without pitching to them, but still makes the offense touch the intermediate bases?! And then the pitcher tells the umpire they're putting the next 2 runners on and the umpire says OK, and by going along with the other team's and the umpire's apparent desire to speed up the game, the offense is penalized?! Darn stupid way to play a game.

Games are supposed to be about skill & wits, not stuff like this.

Robert

Obviously, you are not a FED official or coach. Under FED, an intentional walk does not require the pitcher to pitch. The defense can simply "put 'em on". The offense is still required to run the bases properly. This is not so hard to understand. In the OP, if the defense put on the runners one at a time and not at the same time, they could have had the out.

[DG]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Just like we do not except Future subs we should only deal with one IW at a time.

Agreed. In FED the ball is dead while IW BR goes to 1B and I am not taking another IW until he reaches 1B and the ball is made live again.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Obviously, you are not a FED official or coach.

And I wouldn't be, if this is their philosophy of administering a game!

Under FED, an intentional walk does not require the pitcher to pitch. The defense can simply "put 'em on". The offense is still required to run the bases properly. This is not so hard to understand.

No, but what's hard to understand is how R2 gained an unfair advantage by walking directly to 2B, or how the game is served by allowing the obvious lack of touching 1B to be appealed.

In the OP, if the defense put on the runners one at a time and not at the same time, they could have had the out.

Are you saying the U deprived them of a chance at a play by acceding to their request to put both runners on base? As if a pitcher who wanted to walk 2 batters was thinking about picking the first one off?

What's the whole point of appeals? It's to prevent the offense from gaining an unfair advantage while running the bases. There is no athleticism or great skill involved in walking to 2B. If the U erred in allowing the runner to be in that position, then that's how it should stand. Is there no such thing as preventive officiating in baseball?

Robert

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

...but what's hard to understand is how R2 gained an unfair advantage by walking directly to 2B, or how the game is served by allowing the obvious lack of touching 1B to be appealed.

You know, that is one thing that has been a brain thorn to me since I made the original post. The purpose of the appeal play, and the whole rulebook for that matter, is to keep teams from gaining an unfair advantage. Since the pitcher verbalized he wanted to intentionally walk both batters to load the bases, there doesn't seem to be an advantage gained by the runner on 2nd not touching first. Yes, by the book you must touch first before you can occupy second, that's why I agreed with the ump on-air about the out call. But now that I think about it, there was no unfair advantage since the end result, with a dead ball, was what the defense verbalized...bases loaded setting up an out at any base.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And I wouldn't be, if this is their philosophy of administering a game!


No, but what's hard to understand is how R2 gained an unfair advantage by walking directly to 2B, or how the game is served by allowing the obvious lack of touching 1B to be appealed.


Are you saying the U deprived them of a chance at a play by acceding to their request to put both runners on base? As if a pitcher who wanted to walk 2 batters was thinking about picking the first one off?

What's the whole point of appeals? It's to prevent the offense from gaining an unfair advantage while running the bases. There is no athleticism or great skill involved in walking to 2B. If the U erred in allowing the runner to be in that position, then that's how it should stand. Is there no such thing as preventive officiating in baseball?

Robert

Robert, the umpire did not err in this situation. It is the DEFENSE who must appeal and at the correct time. If they do not, it is not the umpire who is at fault! We are not coaches, we do not advise players. So the next time your team screws this up, don't blame the umpire. Put 'em on one at a time and YOU make sure that they touch-'em-all. It's YOU'RE job, not ours!

Done!

[btdt]

The second batter should not have been awared first base until he was officialy at bat.
One step at a time.
Time: Batter #1 you get 1st on an intentional walk.
#1 reaches 1st base
Next batter:
Put the ball in play #2 is now the official batter
The defense can now intentionaly walk #2

I am not aware of any rule allowing an intentional walk to two batters at once.

[TussAgee11]

Add another one to the preventative umpiring techniques.

Do not grant an int. walk until B/R reaches first. Say "hold on coach" until he gets there.

And then, all of this can be avoided and we have CS and FP without having to ignore rules

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, but what's hard to understand is how R2 gained an unfair advantage by walking directly to 2B, or how the game is served by allowing the obvious lack of touching 1B to be appealed.

It's not much different from a BR being required to touch all bases on a home-run (4-base award) under any rules code. Or, R1 proceeding directly to third when F1 steps off the rubber and throws the ball out of play on a pick-off attempt.

If anything, it might be a bit worse, because B1 isn't entitled to second until B2 is walked. So, if B1 goes directly to second, he has gained an advantage. And, once B2 has walked, the appeal is not valid.