A variation on the play previously discussed...

R1 on 1B, no outs. Count on B2: 2-2. B2 swings & misses, F2 drops the ball. B2 runs toward 1B. R1 runs toward 2B. PU shouts, "The batter is OUT." F2 throws to F3, hitting B2 on the left shoulder, over fair territory. At the time she is hit, B2's left foot is on the ground in fair territory. R1 continues on to 3B.

Whats the call?

I still don't understand how ASA can construe that the Dropped 3rd Strike Rule is invoked when, by definition, it cannot be enforced. If there is a runner on 1B with less than two outs and the catcher drops the 3rd strike, the batter is out. The Dropped 3rd Strike Rule allows the Batter to attempt to reach base safely if there is a dropped third strike with 1B unoccupied or if 1B is occupied with 2 outs. Thats what the rule does. If the catcher drops the 3rd strike with a runner on 1B with less than 2 outs, it should be the same as if they caught the ball. After all, the batter is out and runners may advance at their own risk. Anybody wish to explain this to me.

I am a coach, not an umpire, so type very slowly.

Thanks.

SPEAKING ASA.

I think you are going to end up in the same discussion. To start with, the 3' lane has no bearing as it only applies to a BR interfering with a player receiving a throw to 1B trying to retire a runner or batter-runner. There is no BR, there is no play at 1B, therefore there is no interference if you follow the belief that the retired batter is treated the same as a runner or BR, and interference with a thrown ball must be intentional.
Lacking any guidance from ASA, it is basically DMC.

Let me add something to this discussion. Is there any reason this should not be considered a blocked ball? In the scenario above, since there was obviously no play on R1 at 1B, therefore no out to be made, just kill the ball. If R1 attained 2B before the ball became blocked, she stays. If not, back to 1B.

ASA Blocked Ball:

"A blocked ball is a batter or thrown ball that is touched, stopped or handled by a person not engaged in the game, or which touches any object that is not part of the official equipment or official playing area."

Coach,

Where did you get the idea that ASA has "construed" anything not in the rule book or other form of publication? Please don't confuse our bantering about as an "official" interpretation of any type. Though many of us can get a little "tight" when our opinions are questioned, this format is probably one of the best ways to make umpires stop and think once or twice about some of the rare and tricky things that can happen to us on the field.

Mike,
I admit that I've wondered why this isn't a blocked ball - just for those reasons. The only answer I've ever been given - and by some folks you know - is that it isn't a blocked ball, it's a catcher making a play that shouldn't be made. So we're still left with a DMC. Good thing we don't call the catcher a "fielder" here, else we'd have a dumb MF.

You have a good point, but even as dumb
as this sounds let me ask it anyway.

A retired batter, a player on the official line-up
would not be considered apart of the official playing
area??

glen


Steve,

LOL-ROF on your reply to not calling catcher a *Fielder*.
:D
glen

I think the blocked ball scenerio has merit......however, the catcher should have been worried about R1........NOT the retired batter........

I would tend to put this in the PDC category (pretty dumb catcher)..........

To twofatgy........R1 is advancing at their own risk........and that is the runner F2 should be concerned with.......

Joel

I agree with your first part. I just wanted to explore, from a slightly different angle, the problems caused by not defining <u>what</u> this player is.

I mentioned blocked ball in the thread below, but I said there that I don't really believe it applies. The reason I don't is because this player <u><b>is</b></u> engaged in the game. To me, <i>a person not engaged in the game</i> means a spectator, a coach, or a player on the bench. It does not include a player out on the field of play who is playing the game. A retired runner, for example, does not cause a blocked ball if she comes in contact with a thrown ball. Unless interference is judged, the ball remains live.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA I agree with your first part. I just wanted to explore, from a slightly different angle, the problems caused by not defining <u>what</u> this player is. I mentioned blocked ball in the thread below, but I said there that I don't really believe it applies. The reason I don't is because this player <u><b>is</b></u> engaged in the game. To me, <i>a person not engaged in the game</i> means a spectator, a coach, or a player on the bench. It does not include a player out on the field of play who is playing the game. A retired runner, for example, does not cause a blocked ball if she comes in contact with a thrown ball. Unless interference is judged, the ball remains live.

That is true, but most retired runners that incur contact with a thrown ball are usually where they are entitled to be at that moment AND the rule book specifically addresses their involvment.

Meanwhile, to respond to an earlier question about a player in the official line up being part of the game, wouldn't that also apply to the teammate who is in the official line up and not due to bat? But what happens when that individual is standing in playable territory and is hit by a thrown ball? Odds are you are going to rule a blocked ball and if a runner was in action, you may very well rule the runner out for their teammate's interference. Remember, the batter has struck out. The umpire has emphatically called her out. This player has no right to be running to 1st base.