And I guarantee the attempt to rewrite the book to meet the expected syntax and grammar would increase the size of the book by at least 50% and create more questions and need for interpretations by approximately the same.

I'm not understanding your position, or else you are asking the wrong side of the discussion. I am saying there is no time that anyone can attempt a putout after the pitcher has pitched the ball if there is neither a runner nor a batter-runner. Because there is no one to attempt a putout on.

So, no throw by the catcher in that circumstance can ever be judged an attempted putout. It is either a return to the pitcher (which might not be caught, mind you), or it is a ball on the batter. There no other instances that I can think of.

So if you rewrite the rule to:
Then number 2 is still surplusage.
The rule could be if understood the way you want to that the catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher any time there are no runners (or batter/runner). Exception: Does not apply after a strikeout.

Now, since it seems like a bad rule, I kind of like the other interpretation and I don't see any reason not to go with it.
________
Web shows

Steve,

I couldn't quite tell which "side" youngump was arguing, but it seems to me the argument both he and Dave are making is based on a narrow and literal reading of PART of the rule and then basing a logical argument on that reading.

"The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except
after ... 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."

Looking at that, the EXCEPTION clause makes no sense unless it is possible to have a put out or attempted put out WITHOUT runners or a BR. Obviously (to me, anyway), the EXCEPTION is intended for the basic rule, and PROBABLY, the existing somewhat fractured phraseology developed through several adjustments to the rule over time without anyone doing a fresh-start re-write.

What "other interpretation" would that be? That you can have an attempted put out with no runners?

I agree. That part could be taken out and it wouldn't change the rule in the least.

You'd have to delete the word "other" in #3, or people would argue that #1 only applies with runners on. :rolleyes:
Like Mike said... fix all the fractured phrases, grammar, and logical oddities and you'd still have to explain the interpretations... :cool:

Sure. The catcher was attempting to put out the batter-runner by getting the ball to first before the batter-runner reached first. She failed because the batter was not a batter-runner. In plain English this makes sense, it may not be what the rules guys intended but it's what they wrote and it's a far better rule than what you contend they intended.
________
VAPORIZER REVIEWS

I don't contend anything. It is the clear meaning of the rule, unless you try to apply the "fairness doctrine." You cannot have an attempted put out unless there is a possible put out to attempt.

Sorry, but I can think of several cases where that would change the current rule.

Example 1 is no runners, batter pops up to F2. By the result of hitting the ball, batter becomes a batter-runner; F2 catches the ball, resulting in a putout. Catcher (F2) throws the ball around the horn to celebrate the putout.

Current rule, no penalty. Your rewrite, must award a ball.

Did you mean F2 catches the pop up?

So your logic is as follows:

Batter is not a batter runner. Batter-runner can be put out at first; batter cannot be put out at first.

Trying to put out a batter-runner at first by throwing to first is an attempted putout; trying to put out a batter (that cannot be put out) by throwing to first is also an attempted putout?

Try this angle then. You get paid to umpire when assigned; you do not get paid when you do not umpire. You turn down an assignment because you have a conflict. By your same logic thread, because the assignor attempted to assign you, even though you did not and could not work, you are entitled to get paid.

Good luck with that one. Let me know when you get paid.

Yes, sorry. F2 catches the pop-up, and throws it around the horn in my example; I will fix it to clarify for late readers.

One other thing to consider in JO is if the count is anything other than 3-X at the TOP you could get a strike (or a warning) on the batter for leaving the batters box (rule 7.3.C). BUT that only helps on a less than 3 ball count there is still an issue with a 3-X count.

And just a clarification I am not saying I won't inforce this rule if I get convinced that it is valid in this case, I am just attempting to understand it and make sure that there is "no way around it" (for lack of a better term) cause I just don't agree with it on a "fairness" scale. Like I said fairness doesn't count I call the game by the rules, but I debate them first like we are here. Does anyone here agree that it is "fair" to give a ball to the batter when the catcher throw out of impulse and reaction to the batters actions? I know stupid catcher and if runners are on base then can advance based on it....but I just dont see "giving" them a walk cause they drew a throw.

Still looking for this to make sense.

Attempted put out with no runners and no batter-runner:
B1 hits a pop up in foul territory down 3rd base line, F2 and F5 both go for the ball, F2 calls off F5 and attempts to catch it, she dives and drops the ball. She sets up and tosses the ball to F5 who returns it to F1 as F2 gets self together and back to plate. This was an attempted put out. The attempted part in the rule allows F2 to give ball to someone other than F1 in this type of case.

I still don't like the idea of giving a ball to the batter if the batter draws a throw....but it is looking like I might have to :(