Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by Dakota

3-1 count, no outs, bases empty. Pitch is low, batter swings and misses, F2 controls the ball after it hits the dirt. Batter takes off for 1B as if it was a dropped 3K. F2 throws to F3.

Ball 4?

Is it ball 4? I don't have book at work but there is wording about when this is in effect (the ball on the batter penalty) is is limited to attempting to get a runner out? Or if there is a runner on base? Looking for the wording in this. Would it allow this throw to attempt to make a play on the batter-runner, which is a runner right? So I am asking since F2 was attempting to make a play on the BR would they be released from the must return to F1 rule?

Or taking it one step further is there any "release" from the F2 to F1 rule based on the actions of the batter-runner?

[jmkupka]

I
wouldn't hesitate to call ball 4, I'd just have to accept the grief coming from DC. Some rules are tough to take.

I had a batter take a pitch square in the ribs, watched her trot down the line in real pain. Defensive coach asks me if she checked that swing. I was so taken by the shot she took, I didn't see it. Pointing to my partner, he rings her up, & I have to break the bad news to her & her 1B coach.

[Dakota]

From ASA 2007 (since I have that one electronically)
6FP-7-B

The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout, a put out or an attempted put out made by the catcher.
EXCEPTION: Does not apply with a runner(s) on base or the batter becoming a batter-runner.

In my situation, the bases were empty, the batter was still a batter, and not a BR. It was not strike 3. And, there could be no attempted put out since the batter was not in jeopardy.

[DaveASA/FED]

Well your right the runner was not in jeopardy of being put out, but IMJ that was an attempted put out when that F2 threw down to 1st. I'm not sure that would hold up under protest, but could it ever reach a protest? By rule I am right and I have a judgement of whether it was an attempted put out. Judgement can't be protested.....maybe the defination of attempted put out can be...but does it ever define what a throw down to first with a batter-runner running is?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

...but does it ever define what a throw down to first with a batter-runner running is?

Problem is, it was not a BR that was running. A batter cannot be put out by either F2 or F3.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by youngump

What does "technically, yes" mean? If I'm behind the plate and you're out on the bases and I call this, are you planning on rolling your eyes or saying to yourself he knows his stuff.

Technically means just that; technically-according to the meaning; according to the facts; according to principle. In short, "according to the rule book this would be the correct call." Odd that I wrote this in short form, and now have to explain it to someone, thus making me use more words than I had intended to from the get go. Quit trying to read something that isn't there into a reply.

[Steve M]

Hmmmmmmm, Sometimes I wonder

Maybe the reason for the defensive penalty and no offensive penalty is that this is nothing more than a delay and waste of time for the defense and for the offense it just might be like a stolen base?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Technically means just that; technically-according to the meaning; according to the facts; according to principle. In short, "according to the rule book this would be the correct call." Odd that I wrote this in short form, and now have to explain it to someone, thus making me use more words than I had intended to from the get go. Quit trying to read something that isn't there into a reply.

I'm not trying to read something in there that isn't. Here's the sitch. No one on. Batter hits a liner to the short stop who throws to the first baseman who steps on the bag before the runner gets there. Is the batter-runner out? Technically, yes.

Now, I'm just trying to poll the field, to me this is a call I'm not making unless my training folks tell me different. Would you?
________
black Webcam

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not trying to read something in there that isn't. Here's the sitch. No one on. Batter hits a liner to the short stop who throws to the first baseman who steps on the bag before the runner gets there. Is the batter-runner out? Technically, yes.

Now, I'm just trying to poll the field, to me this is a call I'm not making unless my training folks tell me different. Would you?

Sorry, you have read something that isn't there. The rule reference above is clear that the catcher must return pitches to the pitcher. Your "sitch" has no relationship at all; it isn't the catcher, and it isn't a pitch.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Problem is, it was not a BR that was running. A batter cannot be put out by either F2 or F3.

Then a Quote of the rule:
The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout, a put out or an attempted put out made by the catcher.
EXCEPTION: Does not apply with a runner(s) on base or the batter becoming a batter-runner.

Guess I am reading what I want to into the rule to attempt to be fair, IMO. I am not going to award the offense for them drawing a throw. To me I am going to rule this throw as an attempted put out. IMO the batter/runner running to first caused the F2 to attempt to put her out by making that throw. True F2 could not actually have put her out as she was not legally a BR at that time...but F2 was IMJ attempting a put out, thus relieving her from the ball on the batter penalty. Would this ruling hold up under protest? I am not sure depends on who the UIC is and how they interpret the rules. Personally I think in most cases I could keep it from ever getting to a protest level, by selling the ruling and adding judgement into the conversation enough to make the coach think there is nothing to protest, since they can't protest on judgement. Those who are going to slam me for being unfair to the offense can bite me it's not fair to award a ball on the batter for an incorrect action by the batter. If we consistantly did that then how long will it take before coaches are teaching to run on ball 3 every time?

The more I think about this, what is an attempted put out? A throw back to a base to attempt a pick off? Not in this case, the exception totally removes this rule when there is a runner(s) on base. So it isn't that....so I ask you what is an attempted put out, with no runners on base and no batter-runner?? Cause that is the only time this rule even applies.... I judge that this attempted put out is exactly what we are talking about! I am ready to be proven wrong but want some rules references to do it!!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Dave, to paraphrase your position, you are judging an attempted putout when there is no one that can be put out, because you think that makes it fair? You are asking for a rules reference that is already there; there has to be a player that can be put out for there to be an attempted putout!!

Can you have interference when there is no play? Is your position on this different than the following play? No runners on, no count, after the first pitch, the batter steps forward and interferes with the catcher throwing the ball to the pitcher. Can I now use my "judgment" to say there was interference without a play? How is that different from your intent to use "judgment" to rule an attempted putout when no player can be put out?

Seems pretty clear to me; with no runners and no batter-runner, there cannot be an attempted putout. Just like there cannot be interference.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Seems pretty clear to me; with no runners and no batter-runner, there cannot be an attempted putout.

ok then explain it to me cause I am VERY confused why if there can't be an attempted putout without a runner or batter runner then why is that listed in the rule?

Quote:
The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout, a put out or an attempted put out made by the catcher.
EXCEPTION: Does not apply with a runner(s) on base or the batter becoming a batter-runner.

If there wasn't a chance for an attempted put out then it wouldn't be in the rule would it? What is the purpose of having that in the rule if it could never apply? What by defination is an attempted put out? That is what I am getting at with the requested rule reference, and where my judgement comes into effect. I judge that throw to first with a batter running as an attempted put out, where in the rules does it say that I am wrong?

And to your question about the INT, I believe that there is wording in the INT rule that specifies they have to INT with a play, which is clearer to me than this situation. There also is not an advantage given the offense as a result of their actions as there would be in this play. INT on throw back to F1 with no one on, slight delay of game while someone gets F1 the ball (worst case). F2 throw to F3 when batter running, I give the batter a ball, probably ball 4 and award first base. Again doesn't seem right to me. I will conceed if I can be proven wrong, I am just not convinced yet. Again I judge that the throw was an attempted put out thus no penalty. Where is there a defination of an attempted put out that proves I misinterperted the rule?

[AtlUmpSteve]

JMO, but I think your request for a definition of an attempted putout is intentionally obtuse. It should be crystal clear that there must be an available putout, any possible play being made, to actually attempt a putout. Not think you are attempting a putout, there must be a putout available.

What part of the rule isn't clear? Is it the exception? Let me elaborate on the exception, as to how it can apply.

No runners on, batter gets ball 4. Catcher could legally throw to 1B, and you could consider that an attempted putout (even though BR is awarded first, can legally overrun first, and is not in jeopardy). Suppose catcher throws the ball to the shortstop (coach thinks shortstop is the best athlete that can make the best decisions); is that an attempted putout? Most people would say no, it is a defensive play made as a strategic move to keep the runner on first, but not an attempted putout. So, is the next batter awarded a ball? No, the exception applies to supercede the initial rule.

Another instance, R1 on third, R2 on first. After a pitch, catcher throws to shortstop, even though no runners were attempting an advance (same reason as first play). Again, not an attempted putout, so the initial rule would seem to apply; but with runners on base, the exception applies. No ball awarded.

If there are no runners, it isn't a strikeout or a put out, and the batter doesn't become a batter-runner, any throw by the catcher to anyone but the pitcher is a ball on the batter. Even if you think the offense tricked them, intentionally or unintentionally. The catcher simply must know the count to avoid being tricked, just as they must know when they must throw to first on a dropped third strike. That's the rule, and the intent of the rule, as well.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

JMO, but I think your request for a definition of an attempted putout is intentionally obtuse. It should be crystal clear that there must be an available putout, any possible play being made, to actually attempt a putout. Not think you are attempting a putout, there must be a putout available.

What part of the rule isn't clear? Is it the exception? Let me elaborate on the exception, as to how it can apply.

No runners on, batter gets ball 4. Catcher could legally throw to 1B, and you could consider that an attempted putout (even though BR is awarded first, can legally overrun first, and is not in jeopardy). Suppose catcher throws the ball to the shortstop (coach thinks shortstop is the best athlete that can make the best decisions); is that an attempted putout? Most people would say no, it is a defensive play made as a strategic move to keep the runner on first, but not an attempted putout. So, is the next batter awarded a ball? No, the exception applies to supercede the initial rule.

Another instance, R1 on third, R2 on first. After a pitch, catcher throws to shortstop, even though no runners were attempting an advance (same reason as first play). Again, not an attempted putout, so the initial rule would seem to apply; but with runners on base, the exception applies. No ball awarded.

If there are no runners, it isn't a strikeout or a put out, and the batter doesn't become a batter-runner, any throw by the catcher to anyone but the pitcher is a ball on the batter. Even if you think the offense tricked them, intentionally or unintentionally. The catcher simply must know the count to avoid being tricked, just as they must know when they must throw to first on a dropped third strike. That's the rule, and the intent of the rule, as well.

I see nowhere in there where you've shown case where the exception does not apply that is an attempted putout. The argument is that the phrase attempted putout must not be surplusage. So there must be some case where we have a batter who is not a batter runner and no one on base where the catcher can make an attempted putout. Please describe that situation.
________
California Dispensary

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

ok then explain it to me cause I am VERY confused why if there can't be an attempted putout without a runner or batter runner then why is that listed in the rule?

Quote:
The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout, a put out or an attempted put out made by the catcher.
EXCEPTION: Does not apply with a runner(s) on base or the batter becoming a batter-runner.

If there wasn't a chance for an attempted put out then it wouldn't be in the rule would it? What is the purpose of having that in the rule if it could never apply? What by defination is an attempted put out? That is what I am getting at with the requested rule reference, and where my judgement comes into effect. I judge that throw to first with a batter running as an attempted put out, where in the rules does it say that I am wrong?

And to your question about the INT, I believe that there is wording in the INT rule that specifies they have to INT with a play, which is clearer to me than this situation. There also is not an advantage given the offense as a result of their actions as there would be in this play. INT on throw back to F1 with no one on, slight delay of game while someone gets F1 the ball (worst case). F2 throw to F3 when batter running, I give the batter a ball, probably ball 4 and award first base. Again doesn't seem right to me. I will conceed if I can be proven wrong, I am just not convinced yet. Again I judge that the throw was an attempted put out thus no penalty. Where is there a defination of an attempted put out that proves I misinterperted the rule?

Originally Posted by youngump

I see nowhere in there where you've shown case where the exception does not apply that is an attempted putout. The argument is that the phrase attempted putout must not be surplusage. So there must be some case where we have a batter who is not a batter runner and no one on base where the catcher can make an attempted putout. Please describe that situation.

Anyone expecting the ASA rule book to be grammatically and syntactically precise with respect to the English language or the rules of logical argument is barking up the wrong tree.

If I were to rewrite the rule in question so that even the pickiest reader would have no issue with what is already the clear meaning of the rule, it would be this:

The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch.
Exceptions:
1. After a strikeout
2. A put out or an attempted put out
3. Any other situation with runners on base or a batter becoming a batter-runner

The fairness exception only applies in Communist Kickball.