softball

[Charlie Stascia]

While watching a girls high school softball game the following situation occurred. There was one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd, the batter has a 2 and 1 count. The next pitch is a pitch out and the catcher does an excellent job of faking a through to third. The third baseman jumps as if the ball is going over her head then immediately turns and starts running to left field. The left fielder leaves her position and starts running toward the foul line as if the ball has actually gone over the third baseman's head. She actually runs to the fence. The short stop goes out to short left as if to take a cut off throw. The third baseman who had turned away from the infield quickly goes back to third. During this sequence of events fans are yelling from both stands. The catcher then takes the ball out of her glove and actually does throw to the third baseman. The third baseman drops the ball and the running stays at third.

Isn't that play a deliberate intent to confuse or deceive the opposing team. I believe that that years ago there use to be a rule that stated that any attempt to confuse the opposing team offense or defense was not allow. It seems to me that their were actually penalties defined for both the offense and defense.

I add that I was an umpire from 1967 through 1989 and did high school baseball, softball and men softball. I remember some of the seniors ump that I worked with as a young ump would not allow this. I seem to remember a reading sometning in the rule book about the umpire not allowing this.

I ask the umpires after the game and they both thought that the play was an attempt to confuse the opposing team and was not in the spirit of fair play. They both thought about stopping the play but couldn't remember any specific rule. These were both seasoned varsity programs.

I was merely watching and had no interest in who actually won the game. Just still enjoy the game.

Charlie Stasica
Brookfield, Il

[IRISHMAFIA]

There is nothing illegal with this play. There are two runners, two coaches, a dugout full of teammates and apparantly plenty of fans in the stands. If they were ALL fooled by such a play, shame on them for not paying attention.

It isn't like the catcher can throw the ball faster than lightning can strike.

Now, if you want to get technical with NFHS rules, you could cite 5.3.2: The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher or to play on a base runner.

The only support you might use is that since the catcher didn't throw the ball, there really was no play on the runner(s) and by just standing at the plate with the ball, she was not DIRECTLY (definition ?) returning the ball to the pitcher.

It's a stretch, but from what I have seen and read on this and other boards, I'm sure someone could try to sell it, but it wouldn't be me d:-)

[whiskers_ump]

I agree with Mike somebody should have
been paying attention - mostly the coach(es)
in the coaching boxes. Surely someone saw
that the catcher did not throw the ball.
Um, maybe Local High School Coach needs that
play. >

[bluezebra]

"Now, if you want to get technical with NFHS rules, you could cite 5.3.2: The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher or to play on a base runner."

Directly back to pitcher means the catcher may not throw to another fielder, not that she must throw to the pitcher immediately after pitch..

Bob

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by bluezebra
"Now, if you want to get technical with NFHS rules, you could cite 5.3.2: The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher or to play on a base runner."

Directly back to pitcher means the catcher may not throw to another fielder, not that she must throw to the pitcher immediately after pitch..

Bob

Bob,

I couldn't agree more. Like I said in my post that it would be a stretch. Surely, you have seen umpires completely misinterpret the rules to justify inappropriate calls. You even see it on this board occassionally. That was my point, not that the rule would validate such a call.