Busch League or smart play? Illegal? Drop 3rd Strike.
 

I know you put an onus on defense, in this case P2, to know and understand the rules of the drop third strike, but shouldn't there also be some sort of an responsibility of the offense to also know and understand and not blatantly violate the same rules...

The reason I say this is because I know coaches that teach kids to take off after any third strike to first base regardless if 1B is occupied. Now I'm not talking about the drilled in reaction of just taking a couple of quick steps to first out of habit after a 3rd strike, I'm talking about the running all the way thing. I think it's Bush League to try and draw a throw when you have already been put out.

Scenario, ASA FP, bases loaded, 1 or no outs. Batter swings and misses third strike and a catcher drops the ball. BR now takes off to first on the DTS. Cather throws to 1st in confusion of seeing the BR take off, and then R1 scores (Note: R1 was not running home until after the throw). Could we have Interference, or maybe 10-1-L here?

Of course she should not have thrown to 1st. She should have known that 1B was occupied. But is this not a tactic designed to confuse the defense's effort to execute play, in this case, simply retrieving the ball and throwing it back to the pitcher?

Yes, both the O & D needs to know whats going on around them, but the umpire, hopefully, realizing that bases were loaded and thereby 1B occupied with less than two out should be calling " strike 3, batter out", perhaps multiple times, if necessary.

I don't know about the Busch League, but it is legal in the Miller League. It is also legal in the Bush League, but almost nothing is legal in the Kerry League.

A couple of more perfect points:

1) If the team does this "after any third strike to first base regardless if 1B is occupied", why in heaven's name is the catcher fooled?

2) The rule book (ASA) makes a specific exception for this situation taking the offense off the hook.

Augie would be so proud. Of course ... but they make up their own rules as the see fit there...Incorrect. Many things are legal in the Kerry league. Only problem is that many of them become illegal, then legal, then illegal, etc.

You're on fire! :D

It might have been the first time it happened in any game.

Why is this any different than a Runner rounding 2B after being forced out at 2B and continuing on the 3B?

Because the ASA rulebook SPECIFICALLY calls this situation out as different from each other.

Why would they do so? My guess - in the sitch of runners running around the basepaths, it is much more likely for fielders to assume that if they see a runner running around out there - that runner is someone they can throw out... but in the D3K sitch, the fielders KNOW that a runner between home and first in this sitch cannot be a valid runner.

You beat me to it...
 

My thoughts exactly. Everybody knows that the batter just stroke out and that the catcher didn't catch the ball before it touch the ground. But on a runner rounding the bases after being called out, not everyone is going to know the runner has been retired. Also with multiple runners running on the play, which one was called out? There is the potential for more confusion on this play than a batter-runner running to first base on a D3K.

Batter's out,
BATTER'S OUT,
BATTER'S OUT,
BATTER'S OUT,
BATTER'S OUT,
BATTER'S OUT

I am of the Sierra Nevada league, myself. :D

R1 on 2b, R2 on 1b, ground ball hit to F6, tosses to F4 to start double play, R2 is out, but continues on to third. BR is safe at first. R1 now standing on 3rd, but R2 is caught between 2b and 3b, so F3 not hearing or KNOWING the out at 2B makes a play on her throwing the ball away scoring R1 and now BR is on 2B, at least. That's why she would do it in one scenario.

In the above scenario, the runner is wrong, but in the orginal scenario the rules reward the offense for deceit and pretending to be in play after KNOWINGLY being put out on strike three with first base occupied and run for the sole purpose to draw a throw. Maybe P2 thought there was two outs, maybe she is just as confused about the dropped 3rd rule as most of the softball community. But it is a trick designed to confuse the defense.

The underlying idea in your post, it seems to me, is that deceit should be illegal in fastpitch softball. Say goodbye to the fake bunt; the slap; the delayed steal; the changeup; the rise ball pitch; ... maybe you get the point.

The fact of the matter is that if team A understands the 3rd strike rule and team B does not, and because they do not they get taken advantage of, guess whose fault that is? The 3rd strike rule is dead simple, so the only group of the "softball community" where "most" would be confused by it would be first year 12U players who have just moved up from 10U B.

In the general case, the catcher KNOWS whether she caught the pitch, and the batter does NOT know. That, I think, is the basis for the exception.

If the BR can be coached to run after every strike 3, why, on earth, can't F2 be coached to know the count and know what to do? Coaches are shouting directions at the defense all game long; why would we blame the offense for something that they are allowed to do, just because someone perceives 'some' unfairness about it? I think the BR should always run to first after strike three. Why wait around trying to figure out whether or not F2 caught the ball?

So is a delayed steal, and a fake bunt, and pretty much everything the offense does. Should we takes outs there too?

What is a P2?

10-1-l no longer exists. If it did, there still wouldn't be any application here as there is no violation, therefore nothing for the umpire to enforce.

This is addressed in the rule book and it is not INT. That should be the end of this thread, but I doubt it.

Probably right, Mike.

Tom - You left stealing signs from your list.
"The underlying idea in your post, it seems to me, is that deceit should be illegal in fastpitch softball. Say goodbye to the fake bunt; the slap; the delayed steal; the changeup; the rise ball pitch; ... maybe you get the point."

Yep, you're right. It's not the end of the thread.

However, it might be now.

But I doubt it.