Unusual dropped third strike

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

What is so hard to understand that the umpire put the batter in jeporday? The PU said "BALL!" The batter has not struck out; she has no reason to move, even though the ball is rolling away.

You keep focusing on assigning blame or fault to either the defensive or offense player. My focus is on the umpire. What do you do in any other situation where the umpire put the players in jepordy?

R1 at 1B, D3K, batter starts to run, umpire loudly yells "batter is out!" Batter stops and walks back to p/u her bat and catcher tags the batter. Umpire forgot there was two outs!

Now what do you say? DMB?

WMB

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You keep focusing on assigning blame or fault to either the defensive or offense player. My focus is on the umpire. What do you do in any other situation where the umpire put the players in jepordy?

R1 at 1B, D3K, batter starts to run, umpire loudly yells "batter is out!" Batter stops and walks back to p/u her bat and catcher tags the batter. Umpire forgot there was two outs!

Now what do you say? DMB?

WMB

Much as you will hate the answer, the proper ruling in ASA is batter-runner is out. The umpire calling "batter is out" is equivalent to an umpire telling a player there is one out when there are two. The teams (players and coaches) are responsible to know the game situation and rules. In this play, both teams were potentially disadvantaged by the umpire, as the defense assumably stopped making the play to first base, so how could you then decide you are protecting one over the other?

The ruling would be that the ball was live, both teams had the obligation to complete the play; the one that did gets the result of the play. Only if the umpires actually declared a dead ball before the out was made would the offense then be protected from an out. Further, ASA NUS have stated (at the Advanced Umpire School, actually), that the "jeopardy" clause is meant to correct only instances where one team is completely disadvantaged, not as a "catch-all" to correct situations where there is a legitimate remedy.

Incidently, I only responded to your statement that the defense erred, and should not get the benefit. No blame is involved; the teams should get the result of the play; that's what we are there for. One of my favorite statements is that we don't call the game; we simply acknowledge and announce the results of the players play.

It seems to me that you are more concerned about protecting the batter (who has remedies, a) not swing, or b) advance to first base before being put out) believing you are or may be responsible for either, than getting the call right within the rules, which is supposed to be the primary objective.

It is also interesting to me that you started this branch of the thread acknowledging that "most" of your fellow umpires disagreed with you. Can you consider the possiblility that "most" may be correct. Reminds me of a favorite phrase of one of my peers; "if one person thinks you are an a$$hole, that is just one opinion. "If most people think you are an a$$hole, you probably are an a$$hole". Not calling you that name; just using the phrase as I know it. I suggest you replace the word with "wrong". After all, I don't see a lot of people jumping out to support you on this one.

[Dakota]

Was the original declaration by the PU of "ball" a call?

(Yes)

Is the subsequent declaration by the BU of "swing" a reversal of a call?

(Yes)

Did the reversal of the call place either team in jeopardy?

If you answer "no", then you allow the appeal and the players play it out.

If you answer "yes", and allow the appeal anyway, then you have more work to do (ASA 10-3-C).

If you answer "yes", and not allow the appeal, you take what amounts to an easier path than enforcing 10-3-C, but the same result.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Tom, by your logic, every checked swing that is called a swing is the reversal of a call; and since it changed the count, it put the batter in jeopardy, so it must be overruled by the plate umpire. In fact, every request for help on a missed tag, bobbled ball, pulled foot, etc., must therefore be disallowed and undone under your interpretation of 10-3-C; it is a call, that is reversed, and someone previously ruled safe is now out, or someone previously ruled out is now safe. Obviously, the reversal would have put the team that loses at a disadvantage, and in new jeopardy.

Consider this play; swinging bunt, F1 fields, makes a sweep at BR, BU calls "out". OC asks if he is sure, that at his angle, clearly a missed tag. BU questions PU, who advises missed. BU rules "safe", based on new information.

And, the defense made no further effort to complete the play; and DC now argues his defense was in jeopardy, as they had plenty of time to complete the out; the BU call made them think no further play was necessary. Reversal of a call, someone was in jeopardy, now. How do you want to apply 10-3-C now? Call the safe runner out? Do-over? No!!! You fix only what MUST be fixed when you left one team NO chance to be right. They live with the result of their play; F1 knew she missed, needed to complete the play, since it COULD be overturned.

The act of an appeal is a legal act under the rules, and the result is, therefore, anticipated. The act of asking for help is covered under the rules; and the result is anticipated, that someone loses because the call may be overturned to get it right. ASA 10-3-C is for unanticipated results. Not allowing the appeal is a cop-out, since 10-3-C is not the appropriate remedy. Running (playing) out the play is the appropriate remedy, because plays (particularly checked swings) can be appealed.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Tom, by your logic, every checked swing that is called a swing is the reversal of a call; and since it changed the count, it put the batter in jeopardy, so it must be overruled by the plate umpire.

You're putting words in my mouth (or out of my keyboard), and that is not remotely close to what I said.

It is not whether the correct call places either team in jeopardy, but rather did the umpire's original call place either team in jeopardy in light of the call reversal. It has nothing to do with the jeopardy that was already there due to the play of the players.

Example: Umpire calls infield fly, batter out, with a runner on 1B only. Defense misses the catch. Batter goes into the dugout. Umpires confer and reverse the call. Is the batter out for entering the dugout?

If you want to take the position in the reversed check swing call that the original call of BALL did NOT unnaturally place the BR in jeopardy due only to the umpire's call (and not the player's play), then fine.

However, that is not the position that WMB is taking. You may not agree with it, but what I don't understand is, why his position is hard to understand?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you want to take the position in the reversed check swing call that the original call of BALL did NOT unnaturally place the BR in jeopardy due only to the umpire's call (and not the player's play), then fine.

However, that is not the position that WMB is taking. You may not agree with it, but what I don't understand is, why his position is hard to understand?

Then you don't understand my position. My position is simply that doing our job, making a call that is, by its very nature, subject to an appeal, isn't putting the BR in jeopardy. The batter either swung, or not; we are directed to call it a nonswing and appeal if we are unsure. The result of that appeal is the result of the batter's actions.

What I don't understand is why an umpire I respect thinks that we shouldn't allow that appeal, that doing our job as prescribed should be ignored. Why he would take a position that supercedes what I consider the prime directive; to get it right, within the rules and mechanics for softball umpires. I hear his argument; since it is clear to me, at least, that allowing the appeal is appropriate, and that the batter's actions are the basis of jeopardy, or not, not the umpire doing his job, I don't get how he is stuck on that. Or that doing the job as expected is expected, not stopping to worry about how doing it right might contribute to one team winning or losing. That isn't jeopardy, or 10-3-C; we do our job.

At least, that seems clear to me.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You're putting words in my mouth (or out of my keyboard), and that is not remotely close to what I said.

It may not be what you said, but it is what was inferred (at least in my feeble mind, and apparently the mind of others).

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that we are putting the onus on the umpires. Is the plural of onus, onuses? We seem to want to take the onus from both offense and defense to know the game situation. (See giving the count, outs and runners to the pitcher in another thread.)

These folks on offense and defense have to be responsible for SOMETHING. 98% of them can't buy a $3.50 indicator and have no freakin clue what the count is, how many outs there are or if the moon is made of blue cheese or swiss cheese.

From the gist of this thread, it appears we have some who want the umpires to bear the entire brunt of all of this. Effem. Anybody who thinks a coach is "stupid" doesn't deserve to be paid to umpire. These folks are smart. And they can bear at least some of the responsibilty of not only knowing the game situation, but coaching their players to know the situation.

[justmom]

It was a varsity game, so the defense should have known better. The pitch was well out of the strike zone (high), and the batter obviously checked hard. The PU called "ball", and the batter didn't even know the pitch had been dropped when the defense asked for the appeal. I'm not sure who was hollering for the appeal, but I think the only three (maybe four) people in the game who knew the ball was dropped were the catcher, the offensive coach, the plate umpire, (and maybe the base umpire). I can understand WMB's logic. A batter wouldn't normally run on a called ball, and in this case I don't think anyone (including the defense) really thought the base umpire would overrule this call. Also, I have to wonder...if the batter would have taken off running on the check swing (just in case it might have been a dropped third strike on appeal) would this have influenced both umpires into a mindset that if the batter thought it was a swing and a strike and is running, well then, it must have been? Who would honestly call the runner back and insist that they couldn't run on a check swing?

[Linknblue]

The initial call was a ball as I understand it. Then the defensive team asked the PU to ask for help. It's a ball at this point, right? Base umpire reverses call and says "strike".

On the one hand, the plate umpire put the offense as a disadvantage because he had to ask for help (or did) whatever. Then the BU puts the offense at a disadvantage because the 3rd strike was a "delayed" call.

I say, batter's out ...... you don't get to run because of this "umpire caused delay".

Just my humble opinion...........in this situation, common sense says the blues blue it by allowing the dropped third strike.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by justmom

Also, I have to wonder...if the batter would have taken off running on the check swing (just in case it might have been a dropped third strike on appeal) would this have influenced both umpires into a mindset that if the batter thought it was a swing and a strike and is running, well then, it must have been? Who would honestly call the runner back and insist that they couldn't run on a check swing?

Interesting question. I have my mind made up when I call the pitch at the plate and when I see the batter's action with the bat, so subsequent activity would not be a factor. Actually, I usually click my indicator for a strike when I see the check swing as an offer, recording my judgement (to myself) for when my PU partner asks for help.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

...On the one hand, the plate umpire put the offense as a disadvantage ...Then the BU puts the offense at a disadvantage ...I say, batter's out ....

You simply declare the BR out because the umpires put the BR at a disadvantage? How do you figure that?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You simply declare the BR out because the umpires put the BR at a disadvantage? How do you figure that?

You simply declare the BR safe because the umpires put the defense at a disadvantage? How do you figure that?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Boys and girls,

You can argue who was placed at a disadvantage until the cows come home (or sheep, depending on where you live).

So, where to you draw the line? In the rule book. Use the tools available. No, it's not going to be "FAIR" to someone, but that is life on the field.

The book states that if the BR, after an uncaught 3rd strike, is touched with the ball or 1B touched by a player in possession of the ball, prior to the BR reaching that base, the ruling is out.

Like it or not, the disadvantage argument is a wash as both teams were placed in comparable levels of a disadvantage. The only option left is to use the rules which will prevail in the long run.

[justmom]

I can still see WMB's point here. A coach could tell their catcher to always drop the ball on a third strike check-swing (especially if it's obviously out of the strike zone) then ask for an appeal while picking up the ball and touching the batter. The only way you could coach the offense for this situation would be to tell them to ALWAYS run ALL the way to first on the next pitch if there are two strikes in the count no matter what the PU called the pitch - just in case it gets appealed...Especially since the question of whether or not it was a swing or a check-swing is a judgment call subject to appeal.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by justmom

I can still see WMB's point here. A coach could tell their catcher to always drop the ball on a third strike check-swing (especially if it's obviously out of the strike zone) then ask for an appeal while picking up the ball and touching the batter. The only way you could coach the offense for this situation would be to tell them to ALWAYS run ALL the way to first on the next pitch if there are two strikes in the count no matter what the PU called the pitch - just in case it gets appealed...Especially since the question of whether or not it was a swing or a check-swing is a judgment call subject to appeal.

And there are plenty of coaches who do tell their girls that on the third strike, run to first base in case the catcher drops it.