Well, since you didn't ACTUALLY start another thread on this topic, I'm declaring this to be as flagrant and glaring a hijack attempt as I've ever seen! :D

Tat's good Tom,

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/joker.gif

Okay, now tell me the difference in allowing a play on a non-existant runner and allowing a throw on a non-existant third strike?

If you are going to presume the catcher "thought" she was doing the right thing in one instance, why is that this "presumption" would not apply to the other?

Stirring up trouble? ;) Maybe!

Okay, now tell me the difference in allowing a play on a non-existant runner and allowing a throw on a non-existant third strike?

If you are going to presume the catcher "thought" she was doing the right thing in one instance, why is that this "presumption" would not apply to the other?

Stirring up trouble? ;) Maybe! [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... are you going to tell me that the Player who is running down the line, complete with uniform, helmet and spikes is non-existent? Is there some difficulty with the space/time continuum at the parks in which you've been umpiring?

Whereas, a strikeout with only two strikes is very much non-existent, except in leagues that have "two strikes and you're out" rules.

What the heck... I've been a wisenheimer since I was a kid, so why quit now?

Lee

Of course the runner is non-existent since, by rule, that player is still a batter and not entitled to advance to 1B, not even accidently. The rule book only protects the misguided batter sans runner when it IS a third strike, but they are not entitled to 1B, by rule.

My point is that in both instances, the umpire is required to presume what just happened. You seem to be willing to forgive a catcher who has forgotten the count, but only if the offense is trying to pull a fast one! What do you do if the batter heads toward the dugout after the second strike and the catcher, thinking it is three, whips the ball to 3B? I'm not doing a thing except putting the batter back in the box.

Hey Mike,
Just tell them you are an ASA umpire, and that you were giving the count. (Nobody will be looking at you, so just quickly stick your fingers in the air.) The ASA rulig was, I believe, that the ball was dead when you are giving the count, therefore the "illegal" throw by F2 was legal because the ball was dead, and F2 was not required to throw the ball directly to F1 on a dead ball!

That will confuse any coaches who are not already confused, justify the no call, and the spirit of the game is intact.

Roger

Here I am trying to be nice and honest and our most judicious member comes up and insinuates that I attempt a cover-up by trying to bamboozle the coaches!

Shame on you, Roger! :)

This whole business, is, I think, a perfect example of when an umpire should use judgement and common sense.

In the case of the count being 3-1, pitch in the dirt, batter having nicked the ball, and the batter running to first (no other runners), and then the catcher throwing to F3, I would *not* call a ball on that one, at least at the outset. I'd just say "foul ball" very loudly, and call the batter back to the box. Now, on the one-hand, the batter is trying to deceive the catcher, which might be technically OK, but it's kinda dirty pool in my book, so I'm not going to give any benefit to the offense. But on the other hand, the strict rule of the law requires that I call a ball in this case. I will call a ball if and only if the offense pipes up and complains about it. This is OK, because they are then appealing what is actually a mis-interpretation of the rules, which they are allowed to do. I will make a visible sigh, point out to the defensive coach that the offensive coach is in fact correct, and say "Ball Four".

However, if we have the same case with the count 3-2, you can safely assume that the batter *and* the catcher thought it was a dropped third strike - I would call "foul ball" (the correct call, btw), and return the batter. Now, if the offense pipes up, I'd say "he didn't know it was a foul ball until I called it". If the offense *still* wants to protest, let him.

The more I see it, the less I like this rule. I think it should be re-written similar to what I posted a few days ago.

Shmuel

"Common Sense"

If it were common we all would have it and the need for these boards would be minimized.