Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[Dakota]

If this became a common trick to attempt to "draw" a walk, ASA might address it in the rules, but I wouldn't make book on it even then. To me, it is only slightly more "unfair" than the batter doing exactly the same thing to attempt to draw the throw to advance another runner. The rules clearly make this deception legal, requiring the catcher to be aware of the game situation, so why would they make drawing the walk illegal?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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

Sorry, no cigar. When B1 hits the ball, B1 is a (momentary) BR until the ball is declared foul by rule; over foul territory is meaningless. So, the attempted putout was on a batter-runner (at the time of the attempt).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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

Well, then here is your out.

Coach: Blue, that should be a ball on my batter because the catcher did not return the ball directly to the pitcher and no exceptions apply.

Umpire: No, Coach. I suspended play to perform my umpire duties.

Coach: What? I didn't here you call time! What umpire duties?

Umpire: Well, Coach, as soon as I saw your batter head to first when not entitled, it was my job to make sure she returned to the batter's box with a warning to keep at least one foot in the box between pitches. Of course, doing this distracts me from any other play, so time is out in accordance with ASA 10.4.A&B. C might be just a bit of a stretch.

There you go. Let us know how it works out for you.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry, no cigar. When B1 hits the ball, B1 is a (momentary) BR until the ball is declared foul by rule; over foul territory is meaningless. So, the attempted putout was on a batter-runner (at the time of the attempt).

I'm not sure on that, Rule 8 section 1 A says:
"Section 1. The Batter becomes a batter-runner.
A. As soon as the batter hits a fair ball." and other things too....but to me section A would mean you are a batter until the ball is declared fair, not a batter-runner until foul. You are a batter until you complete your turn at bat, a foul ball does not do that....so I am going with you are a batter until the ball is fair then you become a batter-runner as 8-1-A appears to me to say. So I stand by my example of an attempted put out with no batter-runner.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I'm not sure on that, Rule 8 section 1 A says:
"Section 1. The Batter becomes a batter-runner.
A. As soon as the batter hits a fair ball." and other things too....but to me section A would mean you are a batter until the ball is declared fair, not a batter-runner until foul. You are a batter until you complete your turn at bat, a foul ball does not do that....so I am going with you are a batter until the ball is fair then you become a batter-runner as 8-1-A appears to me to say. So I stand by my example of an attempted put out with no batter-runner.

So, with that personal interpretation, rule on the following:

B1 hits a ground ball down the first baseline, and while the ball is momentarily in foul territory, runs into F1 that was closest to and in the process of charging to field the ball about 30' from first base. The ball rolls and stops in fair territory close to F1, now laying on the ground.

Runners and batter-runners are out for interfering with a defensive player in the act of fielding a fair batted ball; and this was, by definition, a fair batted ball. But, you are saying this person that ran into the fielder was still a batter, and not a batter-runner, because the ball was not yet fair? And 8-2.F(1) does not apply, so there is no interference call?

Or, while the ball is trickling in foul territory, the batter walks into the dugout, and is told to run, so returns to the field and runs to first base, arriving safely as the ball now rolls and stops in fair territory. Since you interpret this the act of a batter (at that time), and not a batter-runner, 8-2.D does not apply, and the runner is safe on first?

Good luck with selling that. I'm pretty sure both of these examples make it clear that batters become batter-runners "as soon as the batter legally hits a (ball which ultimately becomes a) fair ball". Since you cannot know if a ball is fair or foul until it becomes that by rule, you have to assume all the actions taken after the ball is hit is by a batter-runner, until that person is determined not to be a batter-runner.

[DaveASA/FED]

You know I think I am going to have to quit looking into these types of things. The more I dig the more confused I get. I honestly felt ok about my knowledge but now the more I dig the more I question if I know anything. And Steve I see your point about the batter needing to become a batter-runner for all the other rules to apply to them, but as I read it literally that isn't what it says to me. Again never thought about it so much before and just "knew" that it happened that way but when you read the book literally it doesn't say that. I know that is part of filling in the blanks and why we get paid the big bucks but there are a couple of ways to fill in those blanks and who knows who is right?

Edited:
Well it does say "as soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball" so I guess that means they are a batter runner as soon as they hit a ball that becomes fair just like you said.

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok NOW try this one:

Slow roller down 3rd baseline, ball is dancing between fair and foul, F2 is walking the line over the ball and she picks it up and fires to F3 to attempt to get the BR out. Ball is called foul by PU. Once ball is foul, BR becomes a batter only again so now F2 has made an attempted put out with no runner or batter runner in play.

Ok I am waiting to see what other rule I need to look up now and begin to second guess based on that play.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

B1 hits a ground ball down the first baseline, and while the ball is momentarily in foul territory, runs into F1 that was closest to and in the process of charging to field the ball about 30' from first base. The ball rolls and stops in fair territory close to F1, now laying on the ground.

Ok let me ask this then what if the same play happens but the ball ends up staying in foul territory? Thus becoming a foul ball. I would have before this discussion called INT and sent the BR packing. BUT, and I am sure I am missing something:
1) if you have to be a BR to be out for INT with someone fielding a batted ball
2) the ball has to end up fair to be a BR

Then in this case they aren't a BR so you can't call them out for the INT?

I was thinking about the basic defination of INT:
The act of an offensive player...that impeded, hinders...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

and the defination of a play:
An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

At the time of the contact the defensive player was attempting to field a foul ball, which would put the batter back at bat, not retire them. So does this actually constitue a play so we could use the basic defination of INT to still get them out on a foul ball???

And I accept the hijack award and I also want to add I am truly trying to get this straight in my head, not be a pain in the butt. Even though I am good at that, it is not my intent this time!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok NOW try this one:

Slow roller down 3rd baseline, ball is dancing between fair and foul, F2 is walking the line over the ball and she picks it up and fires to F3 to attempt to get the BR out. Ball is called foul by PU. Once ball is foul, BR becomes a batter only again so now F2 has made an attempted put out with no runner or batter runner in play.

Ok I am waiting to see what other rule I need to look up now and begin to second guess based on that play.

Closest one, and possibly technically correct.

At the same instant F2 began the sequence of attempting the putout, the ball became foul by rule, and the batter-runner stopped being a (potential) batter-runner.

I think you could argue either side of that; THAT one I'm not penalizing F2. Not knowing what PU will call instantaneously is every reason to complete the play.

Not knowing the count isn't defensible in the same manner.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok let me ask this then what if the same play happens but the ball ends up staying in foul territory? Thus becoming a foul ball. I would have before this discussion called INT and sent the BR packing. BUT, and I am sure I am missing something:
1) if you have to be a BR to be out for INT with someone fielding a batted ball
2) the ball has to end up fair to be a BR

Then in this case they aren't a BR so you can't call them out for the INT?

I was thinking about the basic defination of INT:
The act of an offensive player...that impeded, hinders...a defensive player attempting to execute a play.

and the defination of a play:
An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

At the time of the contact the defensive player was attempting to field a foul ball, which would put the batter back at bat, not retire them. So does this actually constitue a play so we could use the basic defination of INT to still get them out on a foul ball???

And I accept the hijack award and I also want to add I am truly trying to get this straight in my head, not be a pain in the butt. Even though I am good at that, it is not my intent this time!

A reasonable extension of where the thread has headed, not so much a hijack.

It isn't INT, because the only INT on a foul ball is interfering with a foul fly. In every case, there has to be a play to rule INT, and a grounded foul ball cannot result in a play.

But, not open season on foul balls; you can judge it USC. You just can't get an out that wasn't possible absent the INT.

[Dakota]

The rule being discussed does not apply to any of the tortured "when does the batter become a batter-runner and when does the batter-runner become a batter" angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin scenarios for one very simple reason. They are all after a batted ball, not after a pitch.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The rule being discussed does not apply to any of the tortured "when does the batter become a batter-runner and when does the batter-runner become a batter" angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin scenarios for one very simple reason. They are all after a batted ball, not after a pitch.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

Certainly true.

The relationship goes back to the assertion that it is possible to judge an attempt for a putout without a runner or batter-runner, and the following discussion as efforts to prove or disprove that possibility. So the discussion isn't without merit, but, yes, it digresses from the initial issue.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

A reasonable extension of where the thread has headed, not so much a hijack.

It isn't INT, because the only INT on a foul ball is interfering with a foul fly. In every case, there has to be a play to rule INT, and a grounded foul ball cannot result in a play.

But, not open season on foul balls; you can judge it USC. You just can't get an out that wasn't possible absent the INT.

IIRC, the definition of a foul ball includes interference committed while the ball is foul. (Maybe only fair, which is part of the solution to this problem.) Are you saying the only way that's possible is a fly ball?
Sitch for you, runner on third, the ball is running up the third base line medium speed and foul and hits a rock turning toward fair. F5 sees that she has a play on the batter runner and moves her glove just above the line waiting for the ball. R1 sees this and reaches down and pushes the glove into the ball. Do we have a foul ball or interference with a foul ball?
________
WEB SHOWS

[Dholloway1962]

The batter is supposed to keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches, with a few exceptions. Losing track of the count is not an exception. On a 2-1 count, if the runner takes off for 1B on strike 2 (swinging on pitch in dirt), thinking it is a D3K, I have strike 3 and batter is out.

That is as absurd as calling ball 4 on the 3-1 count scenario in this posting.

Dave, don't make the ball 4 call. Use common sense like you are trying to do, call nothing (other than bringing the batter back) and play on.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok NOW try this one:

Slow roller down 3rd baseline, ball is dancing between fair and foul, F2 is walking the line over the ball and she picks it up and fires to F3 to attempt to get the BR out. Ball is called foul by PU. Once ball is foul, BR becomes a batter only again so now F2 has made an attempted put out with no runner or batter runner in play.

Ok I am waiting to see what other rule I need to look up now and begin to second guess based on that play.

Different scenario completely.

Once the pitched ball hits the bat, it becomes a batted ball. (Rule 1 - BATTED BALL) Whether it settles fair or foul is irrelevant. 6.7(B) only applies to F2 after the pitched ball, not the batted ball.

Besides, once it's a foul ball, it's a dead ball. Nothing more can happen. F2 can throw it to her mom in the stands for all I care...