play brought up at FP camp

[Tru_in_Blu]

I think we're supposed to announce the count: when asked, after a suspension in play, or when the next pitch may result in a status change. A count of 2-1 would not result in a status change regardless of whether the pitch was a ball or a strike.

I think we've also been told that it is up to both the offense and defense to know the count and the number of outs.

The pitch might have been a called ball had the batter not swung at it, but now it's a strike, although only strike 2. The OP didn't say if the ball hit the ground, but mostly this is a moot point since we're now only at strike 2.

In most cases, if the batter takes off for first base, I've got nothing, even if the catcher throws the ball into RF. If that happens, the runner from 3B scores, and the batter is standing on 1B, 2B, or 3B, I'm bringing the batter back to finish his/her AB.

Since this is a "play of interest", I'm going to guess that if, in the umpire's judgment, s/he thought this was being done intentionally, the batter could be called out for interference by drawing a throw to 1B. And if the runner from 3B advanced, would need to return there.

So now I'll await the official ruling and check out the various rules that will be cited.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

In most cases, if the batter takes off for first base, I've got nothing, even if the catcher throws the ball into RF. If that happens, the runner from 3B scores, and the batter is standing on 1B, 2B, or 3B, I'm bringing the batter back to finish his/her AB.

Yep. If you do not kill it and the play develops, run scores.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ronald

Yep. If you do not kill it and the play develops, run scores.

IMO, you do not kill it. Why would you kill it?

[ronald]

Wade,

I can not give you an answer to that question. I do not recall KR giving an answer to that point. I do recall, though, that the questioner strongly emphasized the aspect of the running was deliberate and the umpire knew it was going to happen. He did not go down that road. He went with: wo, time, where you going? get back here.

[wadeintothem]

well he's the man and presuming he understood the scenario as presented here, I would still question that. I'm not sure that opionion has a basis in the rules. IMO, its either a form of interference or its nothing. If we call time and put the other runners back in a "do over" fashion, there is nothing in black and white supporting that. I guess we could always tell a coach "Well ronald said KR said".

This is the same as running to 3B on D3K when its occupied with less than two outs. There is no difference.
This is a live ball.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

If we call time and put the other runners back in a "do over" fashion, there is nothing in black and white supporting that.

Darn that batter... She kicked dirt on the plate, and now I have to call "time" to brush it off.

By the way, the count is now 2 balls, 2 strikes. And batter, you'd better get back in the box before I call strike 3. 1 Mississippi...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

Wade,

I can not give you an answer to that question. I do not recall KR giving an answer to that point. I do recall, though, that the questioner strongly emphasized the aspect of the running was deliberate and the umpire knew it was going to happen. He did not go down that road. He went with: wo, time, where you going? get back here.

The ball can be declared dead by the PU based upon 10.4.A & B. Even C if the umpire believes it is appropriate.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The ball can be declared dead by the PU based upon 10.4.A & B. Even C if the umpire believes it is appropriate.

That's real real good Mike! You are earning your dues today

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ronald

That's real real good Mike! You are earning your dues today

I could insist a player walk ontheir hands to fetch me a snow cone or I will call them out using that rule.

I stand by what i said, there is no rule killing this ball UNLESS you argue for a form of INT (I wouldnt agree with it but its better than GOD RULE), in which case, we have an out.