a caught "dropped" third strike

[David Emerling]

Just curious,

When there is a low pitch that is caught for a third strike, and the play erupts into a dropped third strike situation, do you, as PU, make a more vociferous pronouncement that the batter is out in an attempt to get the needless action to cease?

The ball was caught and the batter is OUT. Yet, the catcher is triggered into action because the batter is racing toward 1st. The ball was low and the catcher's confidence that the PU is convinced that he caught it is equally low.

Do you help the catcher by being very loud and REPEAT that the batter is out? Also, what do you think about the BU becoming involved in this play and pointing the batter out, in support of the PU's ruling?

[bluezebra]

Give all the details. Why is the batter out if the third strike wasn't caught? What was the situation?

Bob

[GarthB]

Bob:

Dave said the pitch was caught for third strike. The runner took off anyway either accidentally or perhaps purposely attempting to draw a throw if, let's say, there is a runner on second and they want to get him over to third on a defensive mistake.

The question is, do you announce loudly and overtly the out, thus alerting the defense to the scheme or let nature take its course and allow the defense to pay for being asleep at the wheel?

There are good arguments to be made on both sides. This isn't so much a rules situation as it is one of game management.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by bluezebra
Give all the details. Why is the batter out if the third strike wasn't caught? What was the situation?

Bob

******
I intend this to be more of a mechanics question.

Let's just assume that the situation was such that the catcher did not need to catch the 3rd strike. Like, for instance, first base is occupied with less than 2 outs.

When I'm PU, and there is a third strike in the dirt that I judged was CAUGHT by the catcher, I usually say, "Strike three, batter's out!" But oftentimes, the players don't hear me, or are to preoccupied with the notion that the ball was not caught.

Should I repeat it? Should I shout it? Or, should I just let them run and throw and think, "They should listen up!"?

[nvfoa15]

The mechanics of the Association that I belong to teaches that the PU will declare "Strike three! Batter is out!" I will say this loud enough the the two most important people can hear this (the batter and the catcher). If the batter continues to run to first base, IMO, it is up to the defense to realize that the batter is out and play accordingly.

[brandda]

You need to call it loud enough to stop the play. W

hile it is not likely, there is always a possibility of injury on any given play, and you would feel terrible if someone got hurt because you did not stop action occuring during what was supposed to be a dead ball situation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David Emerling

Do you help the catcher by being very loud and REPEAT that the batter is out? Also, what do you think about the BU becoming involved in this play and pointing the batter out, in support of the PU's ruling?

Yes, repeat it, loudly. FED is specific on this -- see some case that I can't find right now. I apply this to all games.

I also think BU should help.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by brandda
You need to call it loud enough to stop the play. W

hile it is not likely, there is always a possibility of injury on any given play, and you would feel terrible if someone got hurt because you did not stop action occuring during what was supposed to be a dead ball situation.

********
Well, it's certainly not a "dead ball situation".

[brandda]

David - Point taken. Poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps "no action situation"?

[insatty]

I think the PU should let the play continue, because the BU may have seen the ball on the ground. If the catcher throws BR out on first, there's no dispute. But if BR reaches first safely, PU may ask BU for help as to whether the catcher cleanly caught strike three. If BU didn't get a good look at it, then PU simply upholds his ruling that the batter is out. But if BU clearly saw a strike three not caught, PU corrects his call.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by insatty
I think the PU should let the play continue, because the BU may have seen the ball on the ground. If the catcher throws BR out on first, there's no dispute. But if BR reaches first safely, PU may ask BU for help as to whether the catcher cleanly caught strike three. If BU didn't get a good look at it, then PU simply upholds his ruling that the batter is out. But if BU clearly saw a strike three not caught, PU corrects his call.

*********

I'm not sure delaying the determination is a viable option that the umpires would want to exercise since the defense is deserving of an "answer" so as to determine what course of action to take.

Things can get very complicated when there are other runners on base when this chaos breaks out. What do you think the defense would have to say if the umpires made no immediate determination and the ball was thrown to first on the ASSUMPTION that the third strike was dropped, only to find out that the final ruling is that it was CAUGHT? And, in the process, other runners have advanced?

Right or wrong - I think you HAVE to make a fairly quick ruling on this because it determines the players' course of action.

[insatty]

David:

Of course you make a valid point. But I believe that the teams are more deserving of a correct answer than an immediate answer. If the strike-three pitch is close to the ground, the catcher should be prepared to throw out BR to ensure an out.

Consider this actual situation that occurred in one HS playoff game this year: Low strike-three pitch strikes ground and F2 attempts to sell a catch to PU. F2 asks PU, "Did I catch it?" PU thinking he saw catch says, "Yes." Meanwhile BR has sprinted to 1B and BU is pointing to ground signalling no catch. PU and BU confer and decide that F2 should have known better, and allow BR to remain on 1B. But F2's manager is furious that PU mislead F2.

The moral of this story seems to be that allowing the play to continue and then making certain that the ruling is correct is less complicated than making the wrong call in the interest of immediacy.

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by GarthB
Bob:

Dave said the pitch was caught for third strike. The runner took off anyway either accidentally or perhaps purposely attempting to draw a throw if, let's say, there is a runner on second and they want to get him over to third on a defensive mistake.

The question is, do you announce loudly and overtly the out, thus alerting the defense to the scheme or let nature take its course and allow the defense to pay for being asleep at the wheel?

There are good arguments to be made on both sides. This isn't so much a rules situation as it is one of game management.

This is what Dave wrote:

"When there is a low pitch that is caught for a third strike, and the play erupts into a dropped third strike situation"

Is this a caught third strike, or a not caught third strike? This is what I was trying to clear up. The post is ambiguous and confusing. What Dave obviously meant was that the pitch was caught, and the batter started running. By saying it was a "dropped third strike situation", that changes the meaning.

Bob

[Ump20]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Just curious,

When there is a low pitch that is caught for a third strike, and the play erupts into a dropped third strike situation, do you, as PU, make a more vociferous pronouncement that the batter is out in an attempt to get the needless action to cease?

The ball was caught and the batter is OUT. Yet, the catcher is triggered into action because the batter is racing toward 1st. The ball was low and the catcher's confidence that the PU is convinced that he caught it is equally low.

Do you help the catcher by being very loud and REPEAT that the batter is out? Also, what do you think about the BU becoming involved in this play and pointing the batter out, in support of the PU's ruling?

I disagree that the PU or the BU should "declare" the batter out on a dropped third strike when first base is occupied with less than two out. The catcher should KNOW that the batter cannot run if first is occupied at the Time of the pitch. If he throws the ball into right field he will quickly learn the rule. I think to be overly officious in these cases borders on coaching. Jim/NYC

[nvfoa15]

Ump20,

I disagree with your belief that verbalizing that the batter is out in this situation is "coaching". IMO this is another form of preventive officiating. Having said that, if the defense continues the play by throwing the ball somewhere, they do so at there own risk. Furthermore, by announcing that the batter out you are confirming your view of the pitch/play.