Here's the sitch:

Count is 3 and 1.
No outs.
No one on base.

Pitcher pitches, and the ball is right in there, "steeerike" sez the blue.

Catcher, thinking it's the third strike, throws the ball to F5. F5 tosses it back to the pitcher. Oh. That's only TWO strikes. All right.

But now, before the next pitch, offsensive coach says to blue "that's ball four". Why?

Look at this (ISF rules):
"Rule 6, Sec. 7. THE CATCHER.
. . .
b. Shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, including after a foul ball.

NOTE: An additional ball shall be awarded to the batter.

EXCEPTION: This does not apply
1. After a strikeout, or
2. When the batter becomes a batter-runner, or
3. When there are runners on base, or
4. When a foul ball is fielded close to the foul line and the catcher throws to any base for a possible out, or
5. When, on a checked swing on a dropped third strike situation, the catcher throws to first base to retire the batter-runner. "

And the exception cases did not apply.

The blue did NOT want to call it ball four. His reasoning was simple logic: The pitch was a good pitch, the defense did not get any advantage by throwing the ball to F5, and so why should there be ball 4?

The offense lost the game by one run, and the game was protested.

What do y'all think?


Shmuel

The blues lose in the protest.
The rule clearly states that it is a ball charged when not returnded to the pitcher in this case.
I have seen some good teams burn themselves on this in the past.

A little preventive umpiring would go a long way in this situation. An umpire on the ball, may ask the catcher why s/he threw the ball to F5. If the catcher states that s/he thought it was strike three, no penalty. If the catcher gives any other answer than that, ball four would be the call.

Granted, this isn't always going to be the first thing on the umpire's mind, but I guarantee you that I, as the umpire, will be thinking to myself, "Why did the catcher throw the ball there?" I will probably also be checking my indicator to see the count and may even take a glance at my partner for confirmation of the count. If I can just remember to verbalize my question to the catcher, I'll have it covered.

Oh, and what about the original call by the blue? The pitch was indeed right in there, and the call was a good call, at least from that point of view.

Is the count now 4 and 2, or 4 and 1? OK, it doesn't make a difference here. But say the same situation with the beginning count 2 and 1, or better, 2 and 2?

If you did follow the letter of the rule, then it would
be ball four
because of the catchers actions.

What happens after the pitch is irrelevant to the pitch itself as long as it was not declared an illegal pitch.

[/B][/QUOTE]

A little preventive umpiring would go a long way in this situation. An umpire on the ball, may ask the catcher why s/he threw the ball to F5. If the catcher states that s/he thought it was strike three, no penalty. If the catcher gives any other answer than that, ball four would be the call.

Granted, this isn't always going to be the first thing on the umpire's mind, but I guarantee you that I, as the umpire, will be thinking to myself, "Why did the catcher throw the ball there?" I will probably also be checking my indicator to see the count and may even take a glance at my partner for confirmation of the count. If I can just remember to verbalize my question to the catcher, I'll have it covered.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Irish, I have to disagree. The rule says you award ball 4. That's what you award. It doesn't matter what the catcher THOUGHT. It matters what he or she DID. What the catcher DID was violate a rule that has a specific penalty attached. The penalty is assessed, and hence, ball 4.

lee,

I totally agree with you in this situation.

Just a DC.

Have to agree with Lee on this one. Actually happened to me at the 18-U Gold nationals this year. Catcher threw to F5, thinking it was strike three, when it was only strike two. Count prior to pitch was 3-1, and I even vocalized count prior to pitch. After I awarded ball four to batter, defensive coach came out of dugout, but F2 stopped him by saying, "Coach, that was my bad. Thought it was strike three." Coach just smiled, turned around and went back to dugout.

Serg

I'm with Mike on this one (Oh, wow, heart attack :D).

I'm going with the spirit of the rule rather than the literal interp. It is obviously intended to keep the game moving. It has a penalty that is based on a player's deliberate action to delay the game. I don't see applying the penalty for a mistake.

Mike talked about checking your indicator, or with your partner, or the scoreboard if it exists. Are we sure that we have previously made the count clear? We can also check the player. If she comes out from behind the plate with exuberant action and probably a cheer, then she thinks that she just got an out. I am going to bring her back to earth with a “Hold it Catch, that’s only two strikes!”

If, however, her actions are routine and I discover that she doesn’t know the rule, then she gets the penalty. Now she knows the rule, and we’ve done our little bit of teaching for the day. She won’t do it again.

WMB

OK,

I know this is going to get some reaction, however,

Why is this rule any different? If violated, call it.

We have always said the onus is on the catcher in D3K
situations. Why would we treat this any different? It
is an illegal pitch penalty. We all agree they should be
called when detected.(illegal pitches)

All associations list this as an illegal pitch.
ASA 6-7 Effect
AFA Sec 9-16
USSSA 7-2B Pen
NCAA 10-16
NFHS 6-3-3 Pen
ISF 6-7

Is this to be considered, "no harm - no foul"?

WMB, I don't know what to say about that... the spirit of the rule? Are you going to say that Bobby Brown was right in ruling that the pine tar bat wasn't a violation and that Brett shouldn't have been called out? I'm sorry, but it didn't matter if the umpire calls the count out or not... just as in the IFF rule, it's the situation that determines the rule, not the call.

If you refer to the NFHS rule book, the rule comes under 6-3, which is titled, "violations by catcher". It doesn't mention delay. There are other violations which specifically come under the Delay topic in the index, and this ain't one of 'em.

(I'm disagreeing with WMB? One of us must have been smoking some of that wacky tobacky)

Look at it this way.

If a batter takes off for 1B on an uncaught 2nd strike and R1 scampers to 3B when F2 throws the ball to F3, that's not ruled interference, right? Why not? Because there is an allowance for an honest mistake by the batter. Do they move the runner back? No, because the runner is permitted by rule to steal the base as long as they do not leave the base prior to the release of the pitch.

I'm not supporting the argument that the umpire be a mind reader. And I'm not absolving the catcher's lack of math ability by allowing such an act to occur more than once. I'm looking for an immediate, honest response from the catcher. It's called preventive umpiring. It is not listed anywhere in the rules, but you hear the term a multitude of times during every umpire clinic or school.

If an umpire is getting a change from the coach and notices that the player he is attempting to put in the game was not eligible. As the umpire, do you expect me to keep quiet and wait for the opposing team to protest? I hope not, because I'm going to stop the coach from doing it.

How many umpires here refuse to take a change or reentry prior to that event actually happening? I hope you all do because if you don't, you can get into trouble. If you see a base coach creeping closer to the line after each pitch, do you wait for something to happen or do you instruct the coach to get back to the box? If you see a new face step up to the plate and hear someone say, "new batter" knowing that you never received a change, do you just let it go or do you ask the batter if he is reporting?

When you see a pitcher warming up, throwing illegally, do you say something, or do you just grin and think, "Boy, I'm going to eat this pitcher for lunch"?

Well, you can certainly rule a ball on the batter in the given scenario, and you can believe me that I am not a fan of the "spirit of the game" or "intent of the rule" arguments unless I was in the room at the convention when it was discussed. However, I am a big fan of preventive umpiring and this is not a matter of the catcher delaying the game (purpose of the rule) or showing off, but believing it was the third strike on said batter. This, in my mind, makes the throw valid.

JMHO,

It would seem to me that "preventive umpiring" stopped at the pitch. I always give the count before each pitch. This is preventive umpiring, in my mind. What you're talking about is AFTER THE FACT She threw the ball in a situation forbidding it. It doesn't say you can't throw to an unmanned base unless you thought you struck her out. You had to acutally strike out the batter. That's the catcher's mistake, we have an illegal pitch. All other rules still apply. It's not what the catcher thought, it is the reality we have to deal with.

You mentioned the scenario where a runner advances while a batter goes to 1st on what she mistakenly thought was a dropped 3rd strike. The advancing runner can stay at the base she stole, due to the fact that the catcher should have known it was only 2 strikes. It's just a bad play on her part. Same thing on the catcher throwing to 3rd. Bad play, illegal pitch.

JMHO

[Edited by TexBlue on Nov 29th, 2004 at 09:19 PM]