Is it a Dropped Third Strike ?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by KJ'sDAD

Sorry Mike, but I have been paying attention. Your post relative to the wording change was a little vague, so I felt compelled to offer a suggested word change.

And if you really don't like wasting keystrokes or rehashing old news why are you wasting time responding to this post?

You call this vague?

Next year, 8.1.B.2 should read, "2. There are two outs." or something similar.

No wonder there are so many people out there having difficulty with interpretations.

I'm done here.

[KJ'sDAD]

"or something similar." Hardly concrete.

Changing section 1. without adressing section 2. will leave the rule confusing.

"I'm done here." I'd bet against it.

[whiskers_ump]

Why address section 2 of Rule 8.?

[KJ'sDAD]

Glen;

Rule 8, Section 2 Batter-Runner Is Out
A. (Fast Pitch Only) When the catcher drops the third strike and is legally put out prior to reaching first base with less than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch.


What happens if there are two outs and first base is or is not occupied? Can the Batter-runner still be put out?

Of course she can, but by leaving Section 2 alone it would imply that the Batter-Runner could not.

Now if the rule is amended to read:

Rule 8, Section 2 Batter-Runner Is Out
A. (Fast Pitch Only) When the catcher drops the third strike and is legally put out prior to reaching first base.

The Batter can be put out any time she become a legal Batter-Runner as per Section 1. I think the simpler the language the better.

Kevin

[whiskers_ump]

KJ'sDAD,

What is the title of Rule 8 Section 2.

Section 1 B.2. is the only place the change would be
required.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

[KJ'sDAD]

Glen;

Rule 8, Section 2 Batter-Runner Is Out
A. (Fast Pitch Only) When the catcher drops the third strike and is legally put out prior to reaching first base with less than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch.

Batter-Runner Is Out, I get your point. But.......

Section 1 defines when a Batter becomes a Batter-Runner as the result of an un-caught third strike.

Section 2 defines how/when the Batter-Runner may be legally put out. The part I find troublesome is this: legally put out prior to reaching first base with less than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch.

Again I'd ask: What about when there are two outs and first base is or is not occupied? Can the Batter-Runner still be legally put out? Of course she can , but the rule doesn't say that, but it is very specific about when there are less than two outs and first is unoccupied.

Thank you and Happy Holiday's to you and your family as well!

Kevin

[jstark23]

Great idea Kevin, but no, anytime a batter becomes a batter runner is too general, on a walk a batter becomes a batter runner, on a hit by pitch etc

[KJ'sDAD]

jstark23,

#1 We retain the portion of Rule 8, Section 2 in bold.

Rule 8, Section 2 Batter-Runner Is Out
A. (Fast Pitch Only) When the catcher drops the third strike and is legally put out prior to reaching first base.

That limits this section to "uncaught" third strikes.

#2 Rule 8, Sectiion 1, F addresses hit batters.

F. (Fast Pitch Only) When a pitched ball not swung at nor called a strike touches any part of the batter's person or clothing. It does not matter if the ball strikes the ground before hitting the batter. The batter's hands are not considered part of the bat.
Effect:
1. The ball is dead. The batter is entitled to one base without liability to be put out.

Hit batter "DEAD BALL".

And in the case of a walk 8, 1, c is in effect.

C. When four balls have been called by the umpire. The batter-runner is awarded first base.

The batter-runner can not be legally put out on the way to an awarded base.

Kevin

[Bandit]

WOW ! WOW ! WOW !....I have briefly flown over the two pages that this question has created and have come to a couple of interesting conclusions. It is the middle of winter and even the simple questions can become interesting. Several of us need to get outside and get back to coaching, umpiring or doing something to get rid of some extra hormones, and finally when some people think or say that the simplest of rules sometimes get far to complicated for their own good or for the good of the game they need only to look as far as this thread to prove that point. Keep it simple guys ! "If there are two (2) outs and first base in UN-occupied at the time of the pitch and the pitch goes uncaught. The batter becomes a batter-runner." Simple ! Done !. Whewwwwwwwwwww.

[Dakota]

This whole brouhaha is silly.

At its root is the idea that the ASA playing rules is a book of logic. It isn't. It is a book of playing rules.

As I said above, I would not give a coach much time to argue "The case of 2 outs and 1B unoccupied is not covered in the rule and therefore the B does not become a BR. You can't allow her to advance to 1B, Blue."

Balnoey, and as Mike said, it will be fixed (or so he has been promised). But even if it is not, if a coach want to make that argument to me he better be

a) Brief,
b) Smiling, or
c) Prepared to go immediately to an official protest,

because I won't allow time to be taken on the field with such a silly argument.

[greymule]

The fact that the rule as written had a "hole" in it came up on this board more than a year ago, and it was generally agreed that a simpler statement could have done the job. Everybody seemed to know what was meant, so almost no one had scrutinized the wording for its strict meaning.

[KJ'sDAD]

Bandit

Complicated
WOW ! WOW ! WOW !....I have briefly flown over the two pages that this question has created and have come to a couple of interesting conclusions. It is the middle of winter and even the simple questions can become interesting. Several of us need to get outside and get back to coaching, umpiring or doing something to get rid of some extra hormones, and finally when some people think or say that the simplest of rules sometimes get far to complicated for their own good or for the good of the game they need only to look as far as this thread to prove that point. Keep it simple guys ! "If there are two (2) outs and first base in UN-occupied at the time of the pitch and the pitch goes uncaught. The batter becomes a batter-runner." Simple ! Done !. Whewwwwwwwwwww.

It is the middle of winter and even the simple questions can become interesting. Yup!

Several of us need to get outside and get back to coaching, umpiring or doing something I agree, but it only got up to 18 degrees here yesterday.

or doing something to get rid of some extra hormones She says she has a headache.

Keep it simple guys ! I agree and that's the point of this thread. By removing the verbiage the rule becomes clear and simple.

"If there are two (2) outs and first base in UN-occupied at the time of the pitch and the pitch goes uncaught. The batter becomes a batter-runner." That's what the rule implies and that is how we all interpret it, but that is not what is says.


Dakota

This whole brouhaha is silly. Yes it is, but for the lack of a better argument....

because I won't allow time to be taken on the field with such a silly argument. As it should be. As a coach I wouldn't be surprised if you sent me to the parking lot for arguing this on the field.

At its root is the idea that the ASA playing rules is a book of logic. It isn't. It is a book of playing rules.
Absolutely true, but as a book of playing rules it does change, evolve or become more refined - that's the point. Yes this argument is only a question of semantics, but if the words don't matter only the meaning, why do we get so worked up when somebody utters the phrase "Catcher's Interference"?

I promise - I'll say no more on the subject. It has been fun and I've enjoyed the discussion. To quote Mike "I'm Done".

HAPPY HOLIDAYS to All !!!

Kevin

[whiskers_ump]

This subject has been interesting.

Mike informed us all that a change is in the making.

Soooo, we can all wait and see. However, remember, Mike
was told this. He did not say he made the change, so if
ASA slips and fails to revise the rule, Mike cannot be
held responsible.

As for the current rule, like Dakota said, don't labor on
the point if you are a coach coming out to discuss something
that has been called this way FOREVER and understood to be
this way.
You don't have a leg to stand on. Be brief and move on.

Hey, Everyone, if driving, drive carefully and I hope everyone
has a very nice holiday and returns safely from their travels.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

The Bearded One - Not Santa

[bkbjones]

...the way I handled it might not be the best for everyone, but it worked...

"Coach, if you're really going to protest the game over this, you'll have to file your protest from the parking lot."

As Irish said, and which my Region UIC told me, this is being handled/changed in the 2005 book...

[mcrowder]

bkb - telling a coach that if they protest a rule, you'll eject them may be one of the quickest ways to get yourself off of the umpiring payroll. That, while possibly humorous to think, is EXTREMELY wrong to actually say.