Mule, I understand your point. You hate the rule in question. I have come to hate games that can't get completed in the allotted time because girls dilly, dally, have huddles, step out of the box, and go through all of the hystrionics we see in MLB. So, if the poor girls don't get to throw the ball around after a strike out for fear of getting an extra ball called on them (and THAT is the optimum solution for all of this), who's hurt?

As far as the player that thinks that she caught the ball clean off a foul tip in the dirt... let's be real, ok? The catcher KNOWS when she's scooped one. Just because she's trying to sell it doesn't change the fact.

JMHO

Lee

<b>As far as the player that thinks that she caught the ball clean off a foul tip in the dirt... let's be real, ok? The catcher KNOWS when she's scooped one. Just because she's trying to sell it doesn't change the fact.</b>

She knows she scooped it—that's why she threw to 1B—but she may not have realized that it ticked the bat.

This where Blue steps in---"<b>foul ball</b>"

Of course it is. Anytime the plate umpire leaves his position to perform duties other than making a call, play is suspended, no runners may advance or be put out.

Since the play has been called (ball on the batter), I can see where this is not consider calling a play. ISF 10.8.b

Do you allow a runner to keep running to 2nd & 3rd while you are checking with your partner?

Not in ISF Rules!
The exceptions wirtten aou in ISF rules include:
6.7.b.5 When, on a checked swing on a dropped third stike situation, the catcher throws to first base to retire the batter-runner.

And the same goes for the foul ball in 6.7.b.4.

And BTW in ISF this is not an illegal pitch since it states a seperate penalty (award an additional Ball to the batter) and 6.7.b is excluded from the IPs.

And as Mike stated the Ball would be for the illegal action after the pitch!

Raoul

<i>Do you allow a runner to keep running to 2nd & 3rd while you are checking with your partner?</i>

I have never even considered stopping a runner who is already in motion. Especially when I am working with long-time partners, I'll point immediately on a checked swing and get a call. But this is hardly a common play. It's different if the runner is not in motion. Then, yes, the ball is dead.

It would be the same if, after a pitch, the catcher asked me the count and I said, "Two and one," and then the runner ran on the throw back to the mound. Or if as PU I couldn't see whether F9 trapped a ball and got help from PU.

I am aware of the case play, and I admit these are HTBT situations, but I don't see how every form of checking with your partner automatically kills the play.

so if time is out, then how can the runner be retired if your partner calls the strike on the checked swing?

Couldn't you also call a strike on the batter for leaving the batters box? I mean, if the catcher knows they scooped it, then the batter should know that the ball isn't anywhere near bing in play if she barely ticked it.

[Edited by gsf23 on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 12:41 PM]

Even if they are in motion, how will either of you be in position to make a call if the defense makes a play on the moving runners.

If the runner is moving with the pitch and the catcher makes a throw, you are obviously going to wait on the result of that play before going for help.

However, if the runner is going and the catcher chooses to ignore her and asks to get help, the runner is going to get that base ONLY and then I'll go to my partner for help. Even if the call is eventually ruled a strike, if that catcher doesn't hear it, it is her responsibility to follow through with the play.

And, yes, I know different scenarios may call for a different approach.

Why would a batter be awarded a strike for leaving the batter's box?
If you are referring to rule 7-3-C, better re-read it.

Maybe part of this disagreement/confusion stems from the fact that when I work with familiar partners, we often go to each other on checked swings immediately, without being asked by the defense.

We have signals that allow us to check quickly without being obvious about the fact that we're checking. Is it a mechanic or practice that PU cannot ask BU without a request from the defense?

Yes, of course if the defense has asked me to check, there is time out when I proceed to communicate with my partner.

[Edited by greymule on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 04:08 PM]

greymule:

<i>We have signals that allow us to check quickly without being obvious about the fact that we're checking. Is it a mechanic or practice that PU cannot ask BU without a request from the defense?</i>

No. I think that most of us have on occassions. Using
a preset signal is a great idea. Communications is what
really helps when deviating from the normal procedures.

Um, guys? I know I'm the newbie on the block, but I just found the solution to our problem here, at least in NSA and NFHS. It's one thing if F2 is throwing to F5 after a mistaken third strike... that's definitely a ball. However, on all of these plays where she thinks she's trying to get B1 out on a dropped 3rd strike, that comes under NFHS 6-3-2 and NSA 6-5-e. Both rules say, "except...to play on a base runner."

Isn't that what she's doing? Trying to make a play on a base runner? IN MY JUDGMENT (oh how I love those words), yes, and therefore, no violation, no ball four, and we don't have to be ogres.

Lee

<b>Isn't that what she's doing? Trying to make a play on a base runner?</b>

Seems so, but if with 2 strikes the batter ticks the pitch and the catcher, unaware of the foul, scoops the ball and throws to 1B, she has violated the rule, because the batter has technically not become a baserunner. I think we have a case where a rule designed to prevent delays has unintended consequences as strictly interpreted.

Incidentally, doesn't the book use the word "retrieve"? Does scooping up a ticked pitch qualify as "<i>retrieving</i> a foul ball"?

Well, if I'm not looking to be strict, and I'm looking to interpret the rule, I'm saying that the catcher WAS making a play on a runner. Just because, in fact, the person she was making a play on, unbeknownst to her, but knownst to us (yeah, maybe I'm a little punchy today) wasn't in fact a runner, doesn't prevent us from being human.

Besides, if we were rocket surgeons or brain scientists, that would preclude us being umpires, wouldn't it? We'd have the common sense not to stand there and get yelled at. THERE'S a good thread to start... what kind of careers do we Blues have when we're not being abused inside the fences?