Catcher not returning ball to pitcher

[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.

[Dakota]

Did you mean F2 catches the pop up?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Did you mean F2 catches the pop up?

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.

[DaveASA/FED]

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.

[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

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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?