Unusual dropped third strike
 

This was the weirdest one I'd seen in quite a while. Two outs, no base runners, count is one ball/two strikes. Batter check-swings at next pitch. PU rules pitch a ball. Defense appeals to FU who rules it a swing, strike three. Defense heads toward dugout, batter walks maybe a third of the way back to her dugout when offensive coach yells at batter to run to first, because the ruled-on-appeal third strike was dropped. Runner runs to first (weaving through the mob of defensive leaving the field). Runner reaches first base while the defense was still trying to figure out what was happening. Defense was protesting loudly that "she can't do that". Runner is ruled safe at first on the dropped third strike. Should she have been out for walking away? (On the other hand, the defense should have known they were appealing for a third strike on a dropped pitch). So...how far do you let the batter walk away before you call them out?

They gotta enter the dugout/db territory.

Since the defense is not trying to make a play on the BR, the BR can choose any path they want to get to 1B, as long as they do not enter the team area (dugout).

Shame on the F2 for not thinking to tag the BR at the time of appeal.

If a defensive player would have picked up the ball and made the throw to first base, would there have been obstruction? The runner had to dodge multiple defensive players on her way to the base, and runner was actually in the base-line/runner's lane for about the last half of the way to first. I know...its a big "what if", but I got to wondering about it.

From your post, it sounds like there could very possibly have been OBS. Did any of the defenders leaving the field cause the BR to deviate in her path to the base?

Was this game in NW Dallas? I had EXACTLY this recently (last Tuesday, I believe ... the last dry day in Texas forever apparently), and yes, I did have my arm out on the obstruction.

No, it wasn't anywhere near Texas.

Oh, yeah...she was doing some pretty good footwork to keep from running into the mob of defense that was heading for the first-base side dugout.

Well.. if it didnt happen in Texas, it didnt really happen..

Just ask mcrowder

:D :cool:

This is one of my favorite pet peeves and most of my fellow umpires disagree with me, but I am not going to honor an appear on an uncaught ball that can be turned into a 3rd strike.

If I decided that the batter did not swing, than I am calling an emphatic "BALL!" - leaving no doubt that is what I want called. I will not honor a request to "appeal." I state that the defense has gained an unfair advantage in that the catcher has time to retrieve the ball and gets an easy (undeserved) out when the call is reversed - and my ball call has held the batter at the plate.

Afterall - it was the defense that make the mistake - and they should not be rewarded with an easy out.

WMB

I'm comfortable with the philosophy, just don't know if there is rule support, so without it, I guess I'm part of " most of my fellow umpires".

I know this has been discussed at length in the past so forgive me for adding in this thread, but this part of your argument doesn't seem too accurate to me. Yes, the defense erred on this play, but also, didn't the offense? I mean, its hard to qualify an offensive error, but I could consider this to be one.

Also, typically when there is a check swing, coaches are all over an appeal and very vocal about it, so a smart batter will react to this potential and run anyway, not that they do beyond rarely. I guess I just don't see the defense gaining a terrible advantage because the offense has the opportunity to run, even if just to be safe, but they choose not to.

I have struggled to understand that thought process before, too. While I have great respect for WMB, and despite the fact we (respectfully) disagree on several points, I just don't get that one.

The way I see it, he is saying that failing to catch the third strike (if it was one) negates the right of the defense to have it called properly. And/or that since the PU didn't call it immediately, the defense is no longer entitled to have it ruled on correctly.

The way I see it is that the batter (possibly) made a swing that should be called a third strike. That swing put the batter in jeopardy; not the catcher failing to catch the ball, nor the PU concentrating on the pitch location over the bat movement. The rules provide a remedy for both; the catcher failing to catch the ball (put the BR out) and the PU possibly not recognizing a swing (a checked swing appeal). No rule or written umpire mechanic supercedes the remedies allowed.

I just don't get it. But I respect his right to believe it.

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 guys sit at a keyboard and conjure all these scenarios about what a 16 y.o. girl is supposed to run through her mind. She is required, by you, to consider the possibility that another umpire may overrule the PU who did not call her out, and maybe she should run to 1B just to protect herself - even though the PU said that she did not strike out.

Because some girl does not think this through as specified, you will allow the defense to get a cheap out. Cheap, because you, the PLATE UMPIRE, in essence, told her to stay at the batter's box.

My way is easy. Don't honor the appeal. The explanation (to the coach) is simple (and understandable). The ball game hasn't changed. We just have another ball on the batter; she is still up, the pitcher and catcher can still pitch and catch again, runners can still run - play on!

WMB

BTW - those that say there is no rule to support my position; I say there is no rule forcing me to go to my partner on a checked swing (or any other call that a coach is challenging). It is always my option to stay with my call. In this unique situation, I will stay with my original call.

Then we can assume, since I haven't seen a sanctioning body yet mentioned, you do not call NCAA ball. I believe an umpire is required to check when asked in that game.

BTW, ASA does not discourage an umpire to go for help, and the manual actually directs the umpire to call a ball and go to you partner, if unsure.

I must have missed the part in the manual about "leaving no doubt that is what I want called" instead of getting it right.

There is no doubt that a check swing on a decisive pitch can be a touchy situation, but that's life. You cannot satisfy everyone, all the time, so you just as well get it right.

Okay, the catcher didn't hold the ball. Well, the batter is just as guilty of causing this fustercluck, so why would they receive extra protection?

Under WMB's scenario, instead of being stubborn about going for help, you just as well kill the ball, then ask for help. Then after you award the batter 1B and throw out the defenses' coach, you can calmly clean the plate, return to your position and return the ball to live status.:D

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

You know, this entire situation was caused by umpires!
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm not saying run on the third strike, I'm saying run on the next pitch, even if it's called a ball because it might be appealed.

I don't know about honoring an "appear", but a APPEAL on a checked swing SHOULD be honored. You sound like a hard head to me. Get the call right, even if it bruises your little ego.

Bob

Smart coaching. I had a game MANY years ago, where four batter-runners reached base because they automatically ran on every third strike.

Bob