Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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:

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.

[youngump]

So if you rewrite the rule to:

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

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

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

[topper]

Originally Posted by youngump

Then number 2 is still surplusage.

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by topper

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.
Like Mike said... fix all the fractured phrases, grammar, and logical oddities and you'd still have to explain the interpretations...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

Originally Posted by topper

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

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

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.

[Dakota]

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.