Question on dropped thrid strike

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

Unless things have changed since the 2006 BRD, a retired runner can intentionally decoy the defense in Fed, but not in OBR or NCAA.

One play as example:

R1. B1 grounds to F6. R1 is forced out at 2B, but the relay throw is not in time at 1B. Next, retired R1 gets into a rundown between 2B and 3B and is tagged "out" again as B1 takes 2B. Ruling: In FED, B1 remains at 2B. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out for R1's INT.

Section 274 of the 2006 BRD also notes, "NCAA: A retired runner my not continue to advance if such action 'hinders or impedes' the defense."

That's the point. The defense isn't hindered or impeded by a run-down THEY created.

[greymule]

I don't understand your point. In the BRD example, a retired runner gets into a rundown and in OBR and NCAA is considered to have committed INT because the defense played on him and a following runner advanced.

For a minute, forget the rundown and the question of who initiated the rundown, if such a thing can be determined. Here's another example from the BRD:

R1. B1 hits to right field, where the ball is caught for an out. FED only. R1 holds at 1B, but B1 passes him and makes a dash for 2B. F9, confused, fires to 2B, but the ball is wildly overthrown and goes into DBT behind 3B. Ruling: R1 is awarded 3B.

Note that this ruling applies to FED only. It does not apply to OBR and NCAA, where a retired runner does not have license to continue to run the bases in order to confuse the defense.

If you have a BRD, read the entire section. It's interesting.

[pastordoug]

What is BRD?

[greymule]

The Baseball Rules Differences is written and compiled by Carl Childress. It is "the only complete reference to all differences among National Federation, NCAA, NAIA, and Official [baseball] Rules." (Carl teaches English; note that he correctly uses among and not between.)

Carl revises and updates the BRD annually.

Even if you umpire only one of the codes, it's an extremely helpful book. For example, I couldn't find anything in the J/R or Evans about what the limits are on a retired runner who continues to run. But the BRD had a useful and informative section.

You can purchase the BRD from officiating.com

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by greymule

You can purchase the BRD from officiating.com

You always could in the past. However, this year it doesn't seem to be among the publications offered. I haven't been able to find it on any of the other outlets where it was previously offered.

Does anyone know what's up with the 2010 edition?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Does anyone know what's up with the 2010 edition?

No, but we had a couple people who ordered their 2009 in Feb 2009 and didn't get it until August 2009. Just beware.

[DG]

In this unlikely situation, if I have the dish, and BR gets in a rundown between 2b and 3b, the BR is hearing challenged, and the defense is mentally challenged.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

I don't understand your point. In the BRD example, a retired runner gets into a rundown and in OBR and NCAA is considered to have committed INT because the defense played on him and a following runner advanced.

For a minute, forget the rundown and the question of who initiated the rundown, if such a thing can be determined. Here's another example from the BRD:

R1. B1 hits to right field, where the ball is caught for an out. FED only. R1 holds at 1B, but B1 passes him and makes a dash for 2B. F9, confused, fires to 2B, but the ball is wildly overthrown and goes into DBT behind 3B. Ruling: R1 is awarded 3B.

Note that this ruling applies to FED only. It does not apply to OBR and NCAA, where a retired runner does not have license to continue to run the bases in order to confuse the defense.

If you have a BRD, read the entire section. It's interesting.

OBR Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

[greymule]

OBR Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Yes, I'm well aware of that rule and have been for a long time. When I used the term "by that act alone" in a previous post, I didn't make it up off the top of my head.

But in OBR and NCAA (not Fed), a retired runner cannot deliberately (umpire's judgment) decoy the defense into playing upon him. Trying to draw a throw by streaking for the next base after his fly ball is caught, or intentionally getting trapped in a rundown, do not qualify as merely continuing to advance. Such acts are not "protected" under that wording. They qualify as INT just as much as sticking out a hand to block a throw. That's all I'm saying.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by greymule

But in OBR and NCAA (not Fed), a retired runner cannot deliberately (umpire's judgment) decoy the defense into playing upon him.

That is not a rule.

[greymule]

That is not a rule.

See the BRD for official interpretations for both NCAA and OBR.

See also the case plays in which INT is not called when a retired runner continues to run. None of these case plays involve deliberate decoying.

[greymule]

What does Carl use as his source for the NCAA and OBR rulings on this play (and the other you cited)?

For the "FED only" play in which the retired BR streaks to 2B and draws a wild throw, FED 8.3.3f: "A runner or BR is not guilty of INT if he continues to advance, even when he knows he is out, even if that advance allows other runners to make additional bases." Note: Carl continues, "B1 is congratulated for [acting as] a legal decoy. . . ." He also notes, "You'll have to eject somebody."

Immediately following this "FED only" example, Carl cites the NCAA rules (5-3 Pen 2 and 5-3 AR 1) and "OFF INTERP" Thurston, which emphasizes intentional. For OBR, Carl says, "Same as NCAA" and cites the definition and the familiar rule, with "OFF INTERP" Fitzpatrick as well as "email to cc."

The rundown play and two others follow, with distinctions—based on the retired runner's intent—made between FED and NCAA/OBR.

If you have a 2006 BRD, it's 274, pp. 167-168.