Is this anything? or less than nothing?
 

Fed ruleset.. runner on second, 1 out, count of 1 and 1. F1 pitches a strike, F2 throws the ball to F5....runner never moved off the bag at second. Is this an infraction by the catcher? as I read the rule I sez yes.... as i read the casebook I sez ummmm maybe? I dont remember the rule number offhand. but think it was 6.2.3 its right after the section on infractions by pitcher. I did "sell" this as a ball to the batter and both coaches gave me the "huh, ok, sounds right" look. so if i messed up let me know.:confused:

I say no infraction. The catcher has a right to throw to a base. Who knows, maybe the runner would make a mistake and step off the base. Dave

f2 threw to f5....thats nowhere near the runner.

Well F5 is where the runner would be if she stole right? Again dumb catcher move....BUT who knows maybe the batter blocked her view and she saw movement of F6 and thought it was the runner breaking for 3rd? I am saying a one time thing like this in this condition is a nothing. Maybe a "you think she was stealing catch?" Or say nothing if you don't want to "coach" a couple more times of this with the runner making no move might be grounds for discussion / penalty. JMO

FED states it's illegal unless F2 is "attempting a play."

ASA states "an attempted put out."

F2 possibly anticipated a steal attempt. May have even be instructed to by a coach who thought he had stolen a steal sign. Perhaps the runner movement convinced F2 she "was going."

Seems as if she were attempting a play.

Another note of interest is ASA states this rule (throwing to an un occupied base) "does not apply with a runner(s)on base"

The "ball" call was incorrect.

Using the NFHS ruleset, I would probably allow this, as the defense could have been making a play. Keeping a runner from advancing IS making a play, and that is one sure way to do it. Personally I wouldn't have penalized the defense.

Well, since NFHS recognizes a throw to F3 after a base on balls as a play for purposes of the interference rule (running lane violation) - the argument being to prevent the runner from continuing to run to 2B, they would certainly recognize a throw to F5 with the runner on 2B as making a play, following the same argument, wouldn't they?

runner never moved on second base.... I took this as a "brain fart" by the catcher although she has probably been coached to instinctively throw to third to halt any attempt.

Well, I will file this under "over-officiating" in my head and put a memo on it to NOT repeat that call with runners on bases. ;)

Where is this stated? I can't find anything in either book.:confused:

6-3-2
6-7-B6-7-B EXCEPTION

This shouldnt be called.

If you have a runner on you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

The intent of the rule is to prevent unnecessary delay by throwing it around in between pitches.

That wasnt what the catcher was doing.

Judgement as to intent, meaning, and spirit of the rule is required, not just simply reading black and white words and running out to enforce a rule just read.

I missed the how to judge intent and mind-reading section.... must be inside the front cover or something? :D

You probably missed it by missing clinics. It is key to rule application and interpretation.

:o Thanks

Never missed a clinic in my life... for future reference.