Dropped Second Strike

[blueskysblue]

Weird situation - NFHS FP - bases loaded - two outs - catcher drops 2nd swinging strike and batter takes off for First - all other runners take off - in the confusion, two score - finally, play is killed and umpires confer - batter is called back to the box, count 3 & 2 - all other runners sent back to bases occupied - runs nullified. Offensive coach not happy, but when offered the option of having the batter called out for delay of game, accepted the reset of the play. He actually wanted the batter to be called back, but the runners' advances to stand. I could not see rewarding the offense for a mistake the batter made. If I had thought the batter "intentionally" misplayed the count, rather than just being young and confused, I would have had the third out for delay of game.

What say you all?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by blueskysblue

Weird situation - NFHS FP - bases loaded - two outs - catcher drops 2nd swinging strike and batter takes off for First - all other runners take off - in the confusion, two score - finally, play is killed and umpires confer - batter is called back to the box, count 3 & 2 - all other runners sent back to bases occupied - runs nullified. Offensive coach not happy, but when offered the option of having the batter called out for delay of game, accepted the reset of the play. He actually wanted the batter to be called back, but the runners' advances to stand. I could not see rewarding the offense for a mistake the batter made. If I had thought the batter "intentionally" misplayed the count, rather than just being young and confused, I would have had the third out for delay of game.

What say you all?

Bring the batter back, all action stands. The defense must take some responsibility for knowing the count.

How are you going to call the batter out for delaying the game, when the defense was not prepared to pitch the ball to the batter.

DMC.

[blueskysblue]

What's DMC?

Actually, several defensive players were yelling "that's only two strikes"; however, the catcher saw the batter take off and rushed her throw to 1st. The throw was in time, but since it wasn't a dropped third strike, the batter wasn't / couldn't be out. Meanwhile, the baserunners continued running. The first baseman did not attempt to throw anyone else out, because she knew she had the out on the batter runner.

That's why we felt the only action fair to both teams was to "reset".

I appreciate your position, Mike. If it ever happens again . . . .

[blueskysblue]

By the way, I have read in the NFHS Baseball Case Book (couldn't find it in the softball case book) (I know, I know, baseball and softball are different games) that a runner who runs down to First on Ball Three, thinking it was Ball Four can be penalized for delay of game, with no mention of the pitcher being ready to pitch.

[Ed Maeder]

First of all with the bases loaded and two outs and dropped third strike all the catcher had to do was get the ball and touch home and inning over. Seeings there was only two strikes the defense has to be responsible for knowing the situation also. I call the batter back assume the count and all runs count. There is no other rules to back up what was done. The batter didn't make the mistake the defense did. The catcher also broke the rules by not returning the ball directly back to the pitcher on strike two. There was no strike out, no putout made by the catcher, or no play on a base runner.

[MichaelVA2000]

By the way, I have read in the NFHS Baseball Case Book (couldn't find it in the softball case book) (I know, I know, baseball and softball are different games) that a runner who runs down to First on Ball Three, thinking it was Ball Four can be penalized for delay of game, with no mention of the pitcher being ready to pitch.
__________________
Lloyd


I'm in agreement with Mike on this one. Runners stay where they advanced to, runs count and the batter is returned to the box with the correct count. I wasn't able to find your reference to a batter being penalized for delay of game in the case book, please provide a page number for me.

Thanks

[Steve M]

OK, so you're playing scholastic ball. What does the book say - and reread that delay of game section - does this really fit in the context that the Fed states in the book?

Both the defense and the offense are resposible for being ball players - that means they know the situation and the game.

Addition - DMC = Dumb Move, Catcher

[debeau]

If this was done on purpose havnt we got interference .
After all the offensive player is confusing a defensive player .

[wadeintothem]

Unless I determine its intentional - all play stands and batter goes back to their count.

Ive had this happen before.

[NSABlue]

I sure wish that the FED would issue a clarification for this type of play. My local association had quite a bit of discussion on this type of play, basically one where a B-R takes off for first base thinking there is a D3K when that is not the actual situation. There was so much discussion that our UIC went to the FED to get a ruling. He was told to go to our State Rules Interpretor. Mr Kotowski (Maryland) issued a ruling that said anytime a runner takes off for first base, when she is not entitled to do so and draws a throw from the catcher, the runner is called out for interference, ball is dead and no other runners can advance. I totally disagree with this ruling. I believe the defense is responsible for knowing the situation and the ball is alive and in play, runners may advance at their own risk. However, I will use the State Rules Guru's ruling until I'm told to do otherwise.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by blueskysblue

By the way, I have read in the NFHS Baseball Case Book (couldn't find it in the softball case book) (I know, I know, baseball and softball are different games) that a runner who runs down to First on Ball Three, thinking it was Ball Four can be penalized for delay of game, with no mention of the pitcher being ready to pitch.

NFHS baseball still has the rule about keeping one foot in the batter's box in between pitches. That's the reason a delay of game penalty would be issued there.

I agree with the majority...call the batter back but the runners score or stay where they advanced.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NSABlue

I sure wish that the FED would issue a clarification for this type of play. My local association had quite a bit of discussion on this type of play, basically one where a B-R takes off for first base thinking there is a D3K when that is not the actual situation. There was so much discussion that our UIC went to the FED to get a ruling. He was told to go to our State Rules Interpretor. Mr Kotowski (Maryland) issued a ruling that said anytime a runner takes off for first base, when she is not entitled to do so and draws a throw from the catcher, the runner is called out for interference, ball is dead and no other runners can advance. I totally disagree with this ruling. I believe the defense is responsible for knowing the situation and the ball is alive and in play, runners may advance at their own risk. However, I will use the State Rules Guru's ruling until I'm told to do otherwise.

I wonder if your State Rules Guru has read 8-6-18 (my 2005 book, it may be a different cite in 2006); it specifically states that a batter-runner running on the third strike rule (even when not entitled to do so) is NOT guilty of interference. "A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule."

This isn't gray; it's black letter law.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Steve M

OK, so you're playing scholastic ball. What does the book say - and reread that delay of game section - does this really fit in the context that the Fed states in the book?

Both the defense and the offense are resposible for being ball players - that means they know the situation and the game.

Addition - DMC = Dumb Move, Catcher

Not arguing what the rule (not interference) says; and that is how I enforce it. But, I argue that the offense is protected against 1) not knowing the situation (count), 2) not knowing the D3K rule, and/or 3) intentionally fabricating a play whose sole intent is to confuse the defense, while the defense only is held to the standard of knowing all of the above. Not exactly equitable, in my mind.

But, oh well. It is what it is, and we enforce the rule as written.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I wonder if your State Rules Guru has read 8-6-18 (my 2005 book, it may be a different cite in 2006); it specifically states that a batter-runner running on the third strike rule (even when not entitled to do so) is NOT guilty of interference. "A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule."

I see the rule you are citing but I have to question the "even when not entitled to do so" part. If a runner is running on a dropped 2nd strike, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. Also, if she is running on a dropped third strike but 1st is occupied with less than 2 outs, she is not running on the dropped third strike rule. In both cases, she is running in violation of the rules. 8-2-1

I realize that I am much less experienced that most of you on this forum and maybe out of my league to reply but if the conditions for the dropped third strike rule are not met, how can that rule be applied?

That is why I thought it would be interference if the players in the dugout are yelling "run, run" to a batter on a dropped third strike when she is not entitled to run and that action confuses the catcher into throwing down.

But when I look at 2-32, interference is the confusion of a player "attempting to make a play." So maybe confusing a player to attempt a play would not be classified as interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Think of it this way, TCBlue; if the BR is entitled to run, then it would be obvious to anyone that running isn't an act of interference, wouldn't it? So, what is the rule trying to say?

That rule is telling you that running in a situation when the third strike rule does not entitle the BR to run is not interference. It (that line) was added about 5 or 6 years ago for exactly that reason. The explanation and examples given that year was exactly that; it is not in our purview to judge if the runner runs because she mistakes the situation, or if it is intentional. If the defense makes a play when no play was necessary, or makes the wrong play, too bad defense.