Catcher not returning ball to pitcher
 

ASA punishes the defense with an IP (NCAA awards a ball to the batter and a warning for the 1st offense) when a catcher loses the count and erroneously throws the ball around when the bases are empty. Three questions:

1. Why is the rule in place?

2. Why is there no penalty when the batter takes off to first after ball 3?

3. Why the IP in ASA when the penalty amounts to the same as NCAA - a ball on the batter?

Maybe this has come up before on this board. If so, pardon my ignorance.

Well I don't have my ASA book handy, but I thought it was a ball on the batter in ASA as well?

Now that I thought a minute, it's not an IP but it is a ball on the batter. I guess one could say it has the same effect as an IP (ball on batter) as this situation can only occur with no one on base. Therefore it is only a ball and no bases are awarded.

Why not ask the ASA home office?

Bob

I'm pretty sure its "cuz."

They won't return my calls. Go figure. :D

I guess the question is not specific to ASA. I am just curious why any code would punish the defense and not the offense for a similar act. Actually, with runners on base, I have seen the offense end up with stolen bases when the batter heads to 1st before ball 4. I don't see any real harm to the offense when a catcher doesn't return the ball directly to the pitcher. Hopefully one of the "home office" guys on this board can enlighten me as to ASA's take on this.

Maybe because they know it is not an IP ;)

It is not an IP

Because there is no violation

Again, it is not an IP

6-7.b and effect begs to differ, but that's really just splitting hairs. Do you have any idea as to why the seemingly one-sided rule is used?

Look guy, one day a bunch of dudes sat around with iced tap water, cute matching shirts, and old coffee and talked about rules and they passed some rules and those are the rules. Some you agree with, some you dont. We do our job.

WTF over?

It's a harmless question "guy". If this is the best answer you can fashion, maybe you should read more and type less.

It is not splitting hairs, it is you not reading the Effect below 6.8

It reads EFFECT - Sections 1-5, 7A and 8:

You might notice that this does not include 6.7.B

Ya know, I think I will do the same. Not hard to delete posts, not that they would be missed. Ciao!

My mistake. The rule book next to my computer is from '05 and says EFFECT - Sections 1-8. Sorry.

My other question still stands.

HA! Says the guy who didnt read the rule book before he posted the question.

Whatever.

Let's start over.

Why would any code punish the defense and not the offense for a similar act such as this.

I think this answer still applies. :)

Seems like 4-5 years ago a question about this was on the ASA test. If I remember it was something like: Count 2-1 on B1. Wild pitch bounces off the catcher and bounds towards 3B dugout. Catcher retrieves the ball and tosses it to F5 who is standing nearby. F5 returns the ball to F1 in the circle. The right answer was award Ball 4 to B1. I missed it and that's how I learned that rule.

I would personally never call that situation a ball OOO if you ask me. I have however called a ball on the situation in the OP.

Let me try to answer the reason for the rule.

When I started as an umpire in the early 70's, almost every men's fastpitch catcher in the leagues I called threw the ball to someone other than the pitcher. Every pitch. Ball or strike, or foul, the catcher threw to the third baseman, or the first baseman, or even the shortstop. That player then walked part way to the circle, made some comment to the pitcher, then flipped him the ball. I asked them why; they said it "kept them in the game". Every pitch, every time. Not making a play, just tossing the ball around.

It also kept all of us in the game, a lot longer than we needed to be; it wasted an awful lot of time. When I started calling ASA in the mid-80's, I was happy to see that this was penalized. Don't know when, but I would bet the rule was put in place to keep the game moving, and end that useless practice (like NFHS stopping on-field huddles).

The offense attempting to twist the rule and take off on ball 3 or dropped strike 2 is a more recent issue, so far as I know. It hasn't reached the epidemic point to cause the rules to penalize it; and the solution for the defense is actually quite simple. They just need to pay attention, know the count, and only react when necessary. The best defense is to throw out the advancing lead runner; they get the out and the batter back in the box!!

Is that 'cuz?

Why should the ASA National Office answer a local rule question that didn't have the respect to follow the local chain of command? Assuming he is /you are registered with ASA, you have a local UIC, probably a district UIC, possibly a Zone UIC, assuredly a State (or Metro) UIC, and a Regional UIC.

If you haven't worked the process, the National Office should simply refer you back there. If none of that chain can answer the question, they can refer to the NUS for an answer.

Pretty sure that asking the White House to explain your Social Security benefits will get you referred to the Social Security Administration, at your most local level.

F2 not returning the ball to F1 is punished for delaying the game and a ball is awarded the batter. A similiar act by the offense could be a batter not entering the batter's box in the allowed time and the strike being added to the count as punishment.

Obviously the acts you are trying to compare are not so similiar. If they were, they would be "punished" in similiar manners, as you are inferring. Perhaps you should re-think your question based on this, and what others have already posted.

Thanks AtlUmpSteve for answering my 1st question.

It's not that obvious that, setting Steve's situation aside, 2 players inadvertently losing the count and delaying the game is not similar. 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?

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

Bla... 3-1.

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

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.

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

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?

I
wouldn't hesitate to call ball 4, I'd just have to accept the grief coming from DC. Some rules are tough to take.

I had a batter take a pitch square in the ribs, watched her trot down the line in real pain. Defensive coach asks me if she checked that swing. I was so taken by the shot she took, I didn't see it. Pointing to my partner, he rings her up, & I have to break the bad news to her & her 1B coach.

From ASA 2007 (since I have that one electronically)
6FP-7-BIn 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.

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?

Problem is, it was not a BR that was running. A batter cannot be put out by either F2 or F3.

Technically means just that; technically-according to the meaning; according to the facts; according to principle. In short, "according to the rule book this would be the correct call." Odd that I wrote this in short form, and now have to explain it to someone, thus making me use more words than I had intended to from the get go. Quit trying to read something that isn't there into a reply.

Hmmmmmmm, Sometimes I wonder

Maybe the reason for the defensive penalty and no offensive penalty is that this is nothing more than a delay and waste of time for the defense and for the offense it just might be like a stolen base?

I'm not trying to read something in there that isn't. Here's the sitch. No one on. Batter hits a liner to the short stop who throws to the first baseman who steps on the bag before the runner gets there. Is the batter-runner out? Technically, yes.

Now, I'm just trying to poll the field, to me this is a call I'm not making unless my training folks tell me different. Would you?
________
black Webcam

Sorry, you have read something that isn't there. The rule reference above is clear that the catcher must return pitches to the pitcher. Your "sitch" has no relationship at all; it isn't the catcher, and it isn't a pitch.

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 :D 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!!

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.

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?

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

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 fairness exception only applies in Communist Kickball.

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.

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.

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.
________
Web shows

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Did you mean F2 catches the pop up?

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.

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.

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.

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 :(

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?

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).

Well, then here is your out. :rolleyes:

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. ;)

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.

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.

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. :D

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!:D

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

No you don't. Batter swung at the pitch. That's an exception to leaving the batter's box.
ASA 7.3(C-2)

Who cares...this is OOO at it's best. In this situation, just let it go was my point

SRW you are right, but if the count was 2-2 at the TOP and they run to first without swinging (say guy has low zone and a crappy catcher) if they leave box on that one thinking it is a d3k we could call them for violation and get strike 3.

Again not saying I'd do it, just like I might forget to call a ball if the F2 throws cause the batter takes off :D

Too bad your point was in error. If you make a point, use a correct rule scenario.

Nope. Wild pitch or passed ball is an exception as well.
ASA 7.3(C-4)

Besides, the strike call isn't an automatic call. You have the ability to warn the batter as many times as you feel necessary.

Perhaps you guys should grab your rule book and re-read this section. It doesn't sound like you fully grasp this rule and all the exceptions of when a batter can and can not leave the box.

:rolleyes: :mad:

Trust me I have reread this portion and SEVERAL others several times in response to this post, more than probably any other I have resonded in the years I have been on this site!! :D And I am still confused!

If you reread my post I did not say it was a passed ball, or a wild pitch, I said it was a low pitch and there was a history of a low strike zone and a bad catcher. So the exception you listed would not apply. Also if you reread somewhere in the pages of this post I am not advocating calling a strike and I did mention that a warning is possible in this case, so I do think I have an understand of this rule. However, I guess getting down to it I agree with the original post question....it does not seem fair to me that we give the ability to warn the batter for leaving the box( a delay of the game), even give them 8 exceptions when they can leave the box...but we nail the catcher that throws when the batter is running down to first for no apparent reason cause they should know the count and not react to the offense....maybe it's the rules but it don't seem right!

sure my point was in error I admit that, my bad. Still my point is this is a BS call to make with the 3-1 count scenario given. Make it if you want go ahead. But if your partner in the same game starts calling time to make girls tuck in uniforms and other meaningless calls that are in the rule book don't criticize him and say he is an OOO, because you are as well.

That is all.

throw to pitcher gets away...
 

In one of the earlier posts on this subject there was a situation mentioned where the throw back to the pitcher might not have been caught.

In a situation with no runners on base, and a count of 2-x on the batter, the pitcher throws a pitch she felt was a strike, but called a ball by the PU. She reacts by throwing her arms in the air and spinning quickly to face the outfield. As the catcher is in the midst of a return throw to the pitcher, she realizes the pitcher isn't looking at her and attempts to abort the throw, but it comes out of her had and results in a bouncing ball to F5 or F6.

"Technically" does anyone call an additional ball on the batter? I would not in this case.

Men's modified league with many amendments to ASA rules. Catcher in the first inning on the first batter throws the ball to F5 after ball 2 on the batter.

"Technically" you could call another ball on the batter. My path was to call timeout, and inform both coaches that the ball needs to go directly back to the pitcher. So each side essentially has a warning.

Sometimes "technically" can result in problems w/ game management.

Ted

If you're gonna hit them with a stick anyway, why not hit them with the stick provided in the rules. In your scenario, when the catcher throws it to F5 on Ball 2, I've got another ball on the batter. IMHO, THAT sounds a bigger, better warning than a warning to both coaches.

But John, I didn't hit them with a stick. It was still firmly secured in my utility belt.

Some of these older guys tend to forget sometimes, or they just might be testing the umpire. Most of these games I do are one umpire games until playoffs.

Guess I'm not as quick on the stick as you are. Just trying to avoid a bit of animosity with the teams. Usually we work double-headers with that particular crowd, only 4 team-league, so things do tend to become somewhat intimate at times.

Ted

Ted,
League play, early in the year - yeah, maybe. Generally though, somebody else has "warned" them and they choose to ignore. Grab your stick, whip it out and bang 'em - they'll get it then. Warnings do not usually work.

Your pitcher in the girl's game needs to be dealt with, but I agree with you in not calling a ball due to the catcher's bad throw. Especially since you should now be using the catcher to go tell the pitcher to knock off the hysterical garbage.

In your first situation, I would be tempted to let the pitcher watch the rest of the game from the dugout. At the very least, the coach would be warned that any further antics of that type will earn her a game long trip to the bench. Would I call another ball on the batter? No. The catcher was attempting to return the ball to the pitcher.

In your second situation, I agree with the others that you should use the rules as the warning. Go ahead and call the "penalty" ball on the batter. I think both coaches would understand that warning much better than a verbal one by you.

Sadly, more so with adults than with the kids, the animosity already exists between the players and uniform in many cases. It is just looking for the chance to reveal itself. Not enforcing the rules, if they know what the rule is, is one of those situations that will bring that animosity to the surface quicker than the Flash with diarrhea.

Hey Scott,

Thanx for your [and other's] inputs. Since these were hypothetical situations, many of which we might actually see in games we've done or will do, it's nice to get some different points of view.

And since the pitcher's reaction wasn't fully described and it might have been a "had to be there" to judge situation, I'm not so sure I'd be advocating an ejection for those actions. A lot of things could come in to play here. I described no verbal outburst, or any projected ill will to the umpire. Could be the pitcher was struggling and frustrated with her performance to that point. I've seen players kick their gloves after booting a ground ball or cuss after dropping a popup. I don't view those as ejectionable [a word?] actions. And I'm pretty sure a coach would not be happy in such a situation, either. And, yes, I know...it's not our job to make a coach happy. I've been player, coach, league official, and now umpire, so I have the view from several perspectives.

Most of the games I do are in leagues where I'll see the players week after week. As umpires, we tend to know the players with a short fuse, or the baiters, or the whiners. And the players get to know the umpires. There've been a couple of times I worked a game with a partner who seems to show up to the game angry and with a need to be in full control. Sometimes, bringing the teams in from BP or infield practice results in some angry words. I'm embarassed for his actions and I certainly don't model my game management after his.

So when I arrive at a game, especially with teams I've worked with a lot, I'm hoping they're thinking that they're glad I'm there because of how I call a game and how I treat them. Yeah, sometimes it might get a little heated, but with me, it's never personal. I don't hold a grudge, I don't do make-up calls, and I try to make each call to the best of my ability. I've blown a few calls along the way, but I also occasionally hear after a game "good call blue, you got it right even if we did give you a ration of **** about it during the game."

Ted

Ted, I respect what you are saying. No need to look for issues that don't need to be issues.

But, I disagree with giving a warning for a clear rule violation with a clearly stated penalty; particularly in a men's modified league. That is a breed of game where firmly enforcing the rules is a necessary part of displaying game management, in my experience.