Batter runs to 1B on 2 Strikes

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Good call! I agree with your ruling not that anyone cares. The batter running to first means nothing. He comes back to the plate. Since F2 threw it into the outfeild its still live.

[debeau]

I agree
It seems to me the catcher new the call and tried to get an out on 2nd but threw wild .


Change slightly if I may and we have had this discussion before .
If catcher threw to 1st on a wild pitch to get an out when on strike 2 ball 2 would we have intereference on the batter as he/she confused hindered or interefered with the catcher making a play .
In this case confused , yes as throw was to 1st not 2nd where the out could have been made .

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by debeau

I agree
It seems to me the catcher new the call and tried to get an out on 2nd but threw wild .


Change slightly if I may and we have had this discussion before .
If catcher threw to 1st on a wild pitch to get an out when on strike 2 ball 2 would we have intereference on the batter as he/she confused hindered or interefered with the catcher making a play .
In this case confused , yes as throw was to 1st not 2nd where the out could have been made .

what?

if you are saying what I think you might be saying.. I will staight up disagree. I'm not calling INT for the def on a brain fart. Im not bailing them out.

And yes we've had this discussion a million times and always the Ifs for Int (who knows, might even get an IF for USC).

This play doesnt happen without an E2; therefore, the Def can pound sand, not look to me.

Also.. RF indicated throw to first to me..

[debeau]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
I knew I would get a quick reaction .
I might bring that up in my clinic I am attending from tomorrow and see what the answers are

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by debeau

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
I knew I would get a quick reaction .
I might bring that up in my clinic I am attending from tomorrow and see what the answers are

OK, you do that.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by debeau

I agree
It seems to me the catcher new the call and tried to get an out on 2nd but threw wild .


Change slightly if I may and we have had this discussion before .
If catcher threw to 1st on a wild pitch to get an out when on strike 2 ball 2 would we have intereference on the batter as he/she confused hindered or interefered with the catcher making a play .
In this case confused , yes as throw was to 1st not 2nd where the out could have been made .

Speaking ASA, This is most definitely NOT interference. The rule book specifically excludes this situation from the interference rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking ASA, This is most definitely NOT interference. The rule book specifically excludes this situation from the interference rule.

Well, actually it doesn't. The rule book covers a retired batter running an an uncaught third strike when not entitled to advance to 1B. It does not cover a batter running on the wrong pitch.

However, I would rule in the same manner. Defense needs to know the circumstances surrounding the play.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, actually it doesn't. The rule book covers a retired batter running an an uncaught third strike when not entitled to advance to 1B. It does not cover a batter running on the wrong pitch.

However, I would rule in the same manner. Defense needs to know the circumstances surrounding the play.

I seem to recall a rule book exception that int cannot be called on the D3K situation. I don't keep rule books at the office but I am pretty sure that I read and I believe that Atlumpsteve provided the appropriate commentary on another thread back in Feb or March.

My point at the time was that running on K2 was not the same as running on the D3K when not entitled. Steve said that the information provided when the rule was changed indicated that the intent of the change was to keep Int from being called when the batter ran on the wrong pitch.

If someone has a rule book and can cite a rule (Fed or ASA) that would be helpful.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, actually it doesn't. The rule book covers a retired batter running an an uncaught third strike when not entitled to advance to 1B. It does not cover a batter running on the wrong pitch.

However, I would rule in the same manner. Defense needs to know the circumstances surrounding the play.

While it is in the retired runner section, the exception does not say retired, which is one of the arguments friend Sam makes over on eteamz. Where is the rule, then, that a batter running when not actually a BR is interference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

While it is in the retired runner section, the exception does not say retired, which is one of the arguments friend Sam makes over on eteamz. Where is the rule, then, that a batter running when not actually a BR is interference?

Where is the "Retired Runner" section? What rule would that be?

The exception refers to a "BR" in this rule as a matter of convenience, but I think you know that.

To answer your question, there is no rule forbiding the batter from running which is why there is no call here.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where is the "Retired Runner" section? What rule would that be?

8-7-P, but you knew that!

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The exception refers to a "BR" in this rule as a matter of convenience, but I think you know that.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To answer your question, there is no rule forbiding the batter from running which is why there is no call here.

Yes, I was just matching you technicality for technicality.

I agree - a no call (except maybe, "That's only strike 2")

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by debeau

I agree
If catcher threw to 1st on a wild pitch to get an out when on strike 2 ball 2 would we have intereference on the batter as he/she confused hindered or interefered with the catcher making a play .

Remember, the defense has just as much responsibility to know the game situation as anybody. They should know the actual count. If they don't, there is no way that they are going to get rewarded for their failure to have their head in the game.