At least my team is good for a giggle and some case studies..

[More Cowbell]

My last post was something I had never seen, then last night we had another.

LL 10-11 year olds. Last inning, bases loaded, infield in, no outs. Winning run at third. Sharp grounder to short, throw home for force. Both catcher and runner on third are new to the game, so despite the out being recorded, they both engage in pretty comical pickle.

Cue the coaches, parents, fans, strangers, etc yelling, "Hold the ball...he's out..." The rundown lasted several throws and the catcher dropping the ball, but the new runner on third didn't advance home.

Questions
1.) Did the umpire do the right thing by remaining silent?
2.) What if the runner did it intentionally? (which I'm sure he didn't, just wondering) Would that make a difference?

That is all, thanks!

[bob jenkins]

1) Yes (assuming he had declared the runner out)

2) Probably not.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) Yes (assuming he had declared the runner out)

I dunno. I probably would have given an emphatic, "RUNNER'S OUT! RUNNER'S OUT!" to make sure everyone understood that the runner is no longer viable.

To me, it's no different than when the PU announces loudly that a batter is out on an uncaught third strike when he cannot advance to first base (first is occupied with less than two outs). Why sit back and allow the meaningless rundown?

[scrounge]

At that age, I'm saying something, and repeating it if necessary. While it may be amusing, if that kid twists his ankle in the rundown, I don't need those questions coming back at me. Shaving age? They're on their own after the initial call.

[More Cowbell]

If the "new" runner on third had scored during the botched extraneous rundown, would the run count? (Hypothetical, but it would have been a heck of a way to lose the game, especially since it was the first successful "bring the infield in" play at home we had in three years.)

The umpire was, I believe, a first year kid--who called a pretty good game--and he did signal out, but no further emphatic utterances.

The age part and potential injury issues are germane to the discussion. At some point, I suppose, they need to be pushed off the high dive. Our catcher just started playing, and he really loves to catch (our starter caught four innings prior), and the kid just didn't know what to do once he saw the runner still running and retreating.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by More Cowbell

If the "new" runner on third had scored during the botched extraneous rundown, would the run count?

the ball was still live, right?

[More Cowbell]

Yes, the ball was still live (time had not been called). So I guess the run would have counted? BTW, can any player ask for time, or just the one with the ball?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by More Cowbell

Yes, the ball was still live (time had not been called). So I guess the run would have counted? BTW, can any player ask for time, or just the one with the ball?

Anyone can *ask* for time

[MD Longhorn]

Sounds to me like the umpire did what he's supposed to. And yes, if R2 comes in, the run would count.

And to what Bob alluded to ... asking for time does not kill the play. GRANTING time out (by the umpire) is what kills the play. And if stuff is still going on, I don't care who asks for time, the umpire should not kill the play.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

if that kid twists his ankle in the rundown, I don't need those questions coming back at me.

But he could've twisted his ankle on the way home -- by which i mean his actual home, not the one on the field! If a kid twisted his ankle playing, what's the difference whether he was doing something pertaining to the outcome of the game or not? Like somehow it's OK to twist your ankle if it could affect the outcome of a game, otherwise not? Why not avoid all twisted ankles caused by baseball, simply by never playing baseball? Or avoiding all twisted ankles in the park, by never entering the park? Or avoiding twisted ankles on the left side of the street, by walking only on the right?

It's possible that by being at the game a few more seconds by being in this rundown, the kid avoids getting hit on the way out of there by a car that was at a certain place at a certain time. Or the reverse, getting hit because he was there slightly longer when he would otherwise have missed the accident.

The umpire's call or lack of one did not make the day any more or less dangerous for anyone.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But he could've twisted his ankle on the way home -- by which i mean his actual home, not the one on the field! If a kid twisted his ankle playing, what's the difference whether he was doing something pertaining to the outcome of the game or not? Like somehow it's OK to twist your ankle if it could affect the outcome of a game, otherwise not? Why not avoid all twisted ankles caused by baseball, simply by never playing baseball? Or avoiding all twisted ankles in the park, by never entering the park? Or avoiding twisted ankles on the left side of the street, by walking only on the right?

It's possible that by being at the game a few more seconds by being in this rundown, the kid avoids getting hit on the way out of there by a car that was at a certain place at a certain time. Or the reverse, getting hit because he was there slightly longer when he would otherwise have missed the accident.

The umpire's call or lack of one did not make the day any more or less dangerous for anyone.

Look, dude, you want to take my point beyond the point of absurdity to abject idiocy, knock yourself out. If it's a youngster game that isn't some high-level travel level tournament, then yea, I'll probably say more to avoid an unnecessary rundown than a JV game of high school kids. You do what you want.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But he could've twisted his ankle on the way home -- by which i mean his actual home, not the one on the field! If a kid twisted his ankle playing, what's the difference whether he was doing something pertaining to the outcome of the game or not? Like somehow it's OK to twist your ankle if it could affect the outcome of a game, otherwise not? Why not avoid all twisted ankles caused by baseball, simply by never playing baseball? Or avoiding all twisted ankles in the park, by never entering the park? Or avoiding twisted ankles on the left side of the street, by walking only on the right?

It's possible that by being at the game a few more seconds by being in this rundown, the kid avoids getting hit on the way out of there by a car that was at a certain place at a certain time. Or the reverse, getting hit because he was there slightly longer when he would otherwise have missed the accident.

The umpire's call or lack of one did not make the day any more or less dangerous for anyone.

Wow. Lemme guess: you'd allow a pitcher to deliver a pitch when the batter is digging into the box with his head down.

I have no problem with scrounge's position when it comes to little tikes like what you find in LL Minors. Umpires have as much responsibility as other game officials to err on the side of safety with players that age.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Wow. Lemme guess: you'd allow a pitcher to deliver a pitch when the batter is digging into the box with his head down.

No, because that produces a danger that is greater than the ordinary play of the game. A rundown, however, is just common baseball, and is no more dangerous to kids whether they're doing it as part of a baseball game or just for its own fun.

From the logic of the post I was replying to, it seems that baseball is being treated by adults as an extraordinary danger to children that is to be allowed only by the fact that score is being kept. The kids, by contrast, probably see baseball as an excuse to run around and have fun which produces some numbers as a byproduct.