Dodgers v. Reds - Dead ball missed

[travlinmatt]

Tonight's game between the Reds and Dodgers had an interesting play. Top 9, Reds lead 4-1. Dodgers at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs, count is 2-2. B1 swings at the pitch. The pitched ball strikes him in the shin and ricochets to the backstop. Third strike, not caught with 2 outs, the runners all advance and the umpires allow this. Bases are again loaded, now the score is 4-2. What am I missing? A ball that strikes a batter, even if it is a strike, is immediately dead. In the case of strike 3 not caught, the batter is out and cannot advance to first as the ball is dead. Am I correct in stating that the wrong ruling was made on the field? Thanks all.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by travlinmatt

Tonight's game between the Reds and Dodgers had an interesting play. Top 9, Reds lead 4-1. Dodgers at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs, count is 2-2. B1 swings at the pitch. The pitched ball strikes him in the shin and ricochets to the backstop. Third strike, not caught with 2 outs, the runners all advance and the umpires allow this. Bases are again loaded, now the score is 4-2. What am I missing? A ball that strikes a batter, even if it is a strike, is immediately dead. In the case of strike 3 not caught, the batter is out and cannot advance to first as the ball is dead. Am I correct in stating that the wrong ruling was made on the field? Thanks all.

Yes, if that's what happened the ball is dead, the batter is out, and the game is over.

[JugglingReferee]

Video here:

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/...46125_400K.mp4

[tballump]

If the plate umpire gets totally blocked out, which he did when the catcher moved over, and the base umpires cannot tell whether he was hit in the foot either, you just get away with it. If the catcher would just squat down in the middle of the plate and stay there like he was in the beginning, the plate umpire might have been able to see the ball hit the back foot and not assume it hit the ground for the wild pitch.
Also, just like a high and tight pitch that the catcher completely misses that just ticks his glove, why did the catcher go running after the ball if it hit the player rather than the ground, if you want to go by player reactions.

[Kevin Finnerty]

The thing that I find strange is that both announcers seemed to be unaware of the rule!

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by tballump

why did the catcher go running after the ball if it hit the player rather than the ground, if you want to go by player reactions.

You play until the ump calls time.

You play until the ump calls foul.

You don't head back to the dugout until the ump calls you out.

If you assume, you'll get burned.

[TussAgee11]

I saw it on SC and didn't actually believe that they didn't kill it, just chalked it up to an out of context clip and a less than explanatory anchor. Guess this confirms it.

As PU, I'm sensing something is up when the ball so violently ricochets like that. There is also a sound that comes with a catcher blocking the ball... why didn't I hear it?

And as U3 or U1, there is no freaking way that I'm not seeing it. This wasn't a nick of the toe, this was a direct hit and redirection... not alot of excuse for this IMO. If it happened during my game and I missed it as either PU or BU, I'd be pretty embarrassed.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

If you assume, you'll get burned.

Excellent advice.