Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[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

[Dakota]

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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.