Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by topper

...It seems that there is more onus placed on the defense to keep track of the count than the offense. JMO

Absolutely that is true. Is it "fair"? BFOM, but it is the rule.

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?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Absolutely that is true. Is it "fair"? BFOM, but it is the rule.

1-3 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?

I don't recall ever having a "1-3" count in my life!!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

I don't recall ever having a "1-3" count in my life!!!

Bla... 3-1.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Bla... 3-1.

Have you gotten in the habit of holdiing your indicator backwards or something?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Have you gotten in the habit of holdiing your indicator backwards or something?

Nah, just fiddling with the count to get the sitch right, and goofed it up... but what about the question... is it ball 4?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Nah, just fiddling with the count to get the sitch right, and goofed it up... but what about the question... is it ball 4?

Yes.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Nah, just fiddling with the count to get the sitch right, and goofed it up... but what about the question... is it ball 4?

Technically, yes. But your point about the catcher doing what she thinks she is supposed to do (and is entitled to if it were ball 4 initially) in these cases is well taken. As we always maintain here, though, it is the job of both teams to know the count and game situations at all times.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Technically, yes. But your point about the catcher doing what she thinks she is supposed to do (and is entitled to if it were ball 4 initially) in these cases is well taken. As we always maintain here, though, it is the job of both teams to know the count and game situations at all times.

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.
________
WIKI VAPORIZER

[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?

[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.

[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.