The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Catcher forgets number of outs (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/27525-catcher-forgets-number-outs.html)

John Robertson Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:55am

Catcher forgets number of outs
 
How would you rule on this hypothetical situation?

Runner at second base with one out. Batter hits a fly ball near home plate. The catcher makes the catch near her team's bench area for the second out of the inning. Mistakenly thinking it is the third out of the inning, she heads to the bench while carrying the ball. As soon as she enters the dugout with the ball, the umpires call time.

Would this be considered intentionally carrying a ball out of play, or would it be unintentional? This decision affects the the awarding of bases to the runner who was on second base, of course. (I believe the baseball rule book says that if a fielder loses track of the number of outs and carries or throws the ball out of play, it is still deemed to be unintentional. The softball rule book in Canada does not address this.)

Dakota Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:05am

Without researching this, I would rule this unintentional. The intent of the intentional ;) carry rule is to prevent the defense from stopping a runner's advance by carrying the ball out of play. Note that intentionally carrying the ball into the dugout to tag a runner is conisdered "unintentional" for ruling purposes.

AtlUmpSteve Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:59am

One base, catch and carry. Not the two base award for intentionally carrying the ball out of play.

BCCanuck Fri Jul 21, 2006 01:22pm

Long time reader, first time writer. I 've received a lot of great advice here as well as some chuckles. John, there's a case in the SCA casebook where the catcher follows a runner into his dugout to tag him for missing home plate. SCA rules it unintentionally carrying the ball into dead ball territory. Rule 8-#183 in the casebook. Once again the advice offered by other posters is sound.., I just thought you'd like to know that the casebook reference confirms that SCA agrees with the other rulesets on this one.

CecilOne Fri Jul 21, 2006 02:56pm

The intent of the additional base for an intentional carry is to prevent deception by the fielder to stop a runner's progress. But the usual application of unintentional is a carry resulting from momentum or the above tagging a runner who is in DBT.
I agree with the above "rulings" as long as you are comfortable with the fielder's intent or lack of it.

Personally, I would make the rule such that a intentional carry to stop a runner is a live ball, with the runner protected for at least two bases. :(

IRISHMAFIA Fri Jul 21, 2006 02:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne
The intent of the additional base for an intentional carry is to prevent deception by the fielder to stop a runner's progress. But the usual application of unintentional is a carry resulting from momentum or the above tagging a runner who is in DBT.
I agree with the above "rulings" as long as you are comfortable with the fielder's intent or lack of it.

Personally, I would make the rule such that a intentional carry to stop a runner is a live ball, with the runner protected for at least two bases. :(

How can you have a live ball when it is in the possession of a player in DBT?

CecilOne Fri Jul 21, 2006 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
How can you have a live ball when it is in the possession of a player in DBT?

Of course we can't. Just commenting on having a stronger penalty for such an action.

John Robertson Fri Jul 21, 2006 04:27pm

Thanks for the input. That's what I would have ruled.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1