The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germantown, TN (east of Memphis)
Posts: 783
Detached equipment (OBR)

I need an OBR ruling on this:

Nobody on, nobody out. The batter swings at a pitch in the dirt for strike three. The ball squirts away from the catcher by only a couple feet and he is having a difficult time finding it. The batter begins to sprint to 1st. The catcher removes his mask and eventually finds the ball at his feet. Using his mask, he scoops the ball into his glove and then throws the runner out at 1st.

Again, using OBR - would the batter-runner get a 1 or 2 base award?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Umm...this is simple. What does 7.04e say?
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Every live ball has one of three statuses: it's a batted ball, a thrown ball, or a pitch.

The detached equipment rule applies penalties based on the status of the ball. Which one is it in your case when the detached equipment contacts the ball?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germantown, TN (east of Memphis)
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Every live ball has one of three statuses: it's a batted ball, a thrown ball, or a pitch.

The detached equipment rule applies penalties based on the status of the ball. Which one is it in your case when the detached equipment contacts the ball?
The reason I ask is because I was having a discussion with another umpire who pointed out that rule 7.04(e), unlike all the other detached equipment rules, does not require an instantly dead ball. It also says that it does not apply to the batter.

7.04(e) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.

So, in his opinion, since the ball is not dead, and the batter is not awarded any bases, the catcher would need to throw out the batter. Any other runners would be awarded at least one base.

I disagreed because I said that there is no batter in this scenario. Because it was an uncaught third strike, there is no batter. The batter has become a batter-runner, who is a runner, not a batter. Therefore, the provisions of 7.04(e) would apply and the "batter" would be awarded 1-base.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Emerling View Post
I disagreed because I said that there is no batter in this scenario. Because it was an uncaught third strike, there is no batter. The batter has become a batter-runner, who is a runner, not a batter. Therefore, the provisions of 7.04(e) would apply and the "batter" would be awarded 1-base.
You are correct.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Emerling View Post
The reason I ask is because I was having a discussion with another umpire who pointed out that rule 7.04(e), unlike all the other detached equipment rules, does not require an instantly dead ball. It also says that it does not apply to the batter.

7.04(e) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.

So, in his opinion, since the ball is not dead, and the batter is not awarded any bases, the catcher would need to throw out the batter. Any other runners would be awarded at least one base.

I disagreed because I said that there is no batter in this scenario. Because it was an uncaught third strike, there is no batter. The batter has become a batter-runner, who is a runner, not a batter. Therefore, the provisions of 7.04(e) would apply and the "batter" would be awarded 1-base.
Agreed.

Rita
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Emerling View Post
The reason I ask is because I was having a discussion with another umpire who pointed out that rule 7.04(e), unlike all the other detached equipment rules, does not require an instantly dead ball. It also says that it does not apply to the batter.

7.04(e) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched.

So, in his opinion, since the ball is not dead, and the batter is not awarded any bases, the catcher would need to throw out the batter. Any other runners would be awarded at least one base.

I disagreed because I said that there is no batter in this scenario. Because it was an uncaught third strike, there is no batter. The batter has become a batter-runner, who is a runner, not a batter. Therefore, the provisions of 7.04(e) would apply and the "batter" would be awarded 1-base.
The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue. But the reason it's there is so that we don't put batters on first base when someone hits the ball with detached equipment on a passed ball or wild throw on stolen base, etc. A NON-batted ball.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue. But the reason it's there is so that we don't put batters on first base when someone hits the ball with detached equipment on a passed ball or wild throw on stolen base, etc. A NON-batted ball.
Of course, a dropped third strike isn't batted either...

Rita
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
The rule should not have "other than the batter" - it only confuses the issue.
I suspect it confuses only those who don't understand the distinction between a batter and a batter-runner. David Emerling's interlocutor, for instance.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
I suspect it confuses only those who don't understand the distinction between a batter and a batter-runner. David Emerling's interlocutor, for instance.
Yes, but just saying RUNNER was good enough. It's like saying... All vegetables, other than tomatoes, come from the leaf, stem, or root of the plant.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Yes, but just saying RUNNER was good enough. It's like saying... All vegetables, other than tomatoes, come from the leaf, stem, or root of the plant.
Well that isn't correct either.

Rita
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 01, 2012, 06:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C View Post
Well that isn't correct either.

Rita
Actually, I see his point. "All runners, other than the batter..." is misleading because the batter is NOT a runner.

"All vegetables, other than tomatoes..." has the same problem, kinda. The only tiny quibble is that the term 'vegetables' is not botanically on a par with 'fruits', but that's the tiniest of nits.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 01, 2012, 11:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
Actually, I see his point. "All runners, other than the batter..." is misleading because the batter is NOT a runner.

"All vegetables, other than tomatoes..." has the same problem, kinda. The only tiny quibble is that the term 'vegetables' is not botanically on a par with 'fruits', but that's the tiniest of nits.
It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence (and analogy) doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita

Last edited by Rita C; Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 01:37pm. Reason: punctuation
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 01, 2012, 12:40pm
I hate Illinois Nazis
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C View Post
It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence and analogy doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita
From my high school biology teacher: if there's a seed, it's a fruit. It doesn't have to be edible. That "helicopter business" (he was referring to maple tree seeds, for example), --> fruit.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 01, 2012, 07:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C View Post
It's just that all squash and cucumbers are also "fruit" like tomatoes are "fruit". Which is why his sentence (and analogy) doesn't work.

And while we are at it, the whole idea that tomatoes are fruit came from a customs or tarif designation. It was never botanical.

Rita
Apologies for hijacking. A fruit is a botanical, not merely a customs, category. Vegetable is not.

Not sure where you got your info, Rita.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Detached Player Equipment MikeStrybel Baseball 3 Mon Dec 12, 2011 07:55pm
Detached glove? bsaucer Baseball 25 Wed Aug 10, 2011 06:06pm
Detached Equipment on a Foul Fly SC Ump Softball 12 Mon May 11, 2009 02:56pm
detached equipment ggk Baseball 17 Sun Jan 20, 2008 01:21am
Detached Equipment rwest Softball 6 Fri May 05, 2006 01:09pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1