can of third strike worms

refjef40 · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 26, 2003, 10:01am

In my Fed Var. game the other day I had runners a first and second with two outs and two strikes on the hitter.The next pitch is a ball with a checked swing and the runners off at the pitch.The batter thinks it is strike three and takes off two first.I'm yelling ball and in all the noise she goes to first.I finally get everybody to pay attention and return the batter to the plate.I left the runners on second and third since they were already running.Nobody complained and the batter grounded out.My question is if the runners weren't stealing and they advanced in that situation because of a throw to first would they be sent back?Also has anyone seen this tactic done on purpose and what would you do if you thought it was?

mo99 · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 26, 2003, 10:31am

In Fed ball,it is always the responsibility of the defense to know the situation and not throw down to first.The catcher must know the count,number of outs,and position of the baserunners as it is totally up to her to make the proper decision.If you called the pitch a ball,she should not have thrown to first.If you felt this action was done on purpose,I would give a team warning to the effect of making a travesty of the game,but on a check swing for a possible strike three,I would give the batter the benefit of the doubt on that one.You were defintely correct in letting the baserunners remain on the bases they achieved.

Jeff

Dakota · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 26, 2003, 02:04pm

I agree with Jeff (mostly).

While in the situation you described, it sounded more like the batter didn't want to take any chances than a trick play, this in one of the "legal" trick plays. I don't think it even deserves a warning.

With a checked swing on a ball in the dirt and 2 strikes, the catcher can ask for an appeal to the BU. If you grant it, and if your BU says she went, then the BR is a dead duck, so it works both ways.

Even if the runners did not try to advance until they saw the batter run, they are still allowed the bases they achieved. After all, if the smart catcher threw down to 3rd instead of 1st and got R1 out, you'd let the out stand, wouldn't you?

CecilOne · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 26, 2003, 02:06pm

A while back, we discussed a batter running on a 3-0 strike call, assuming or pretending it was ball four. Here is a comment I made then:
"I would have an opinion (an umpire judgement) on whether the batter was being dumb or deceitful. Assuming dumb, run scores and the batter returns to bat. Shame on defense. Assuming deceitful, run scores, batter DQ for USC. Most likely, I would assume dumb and not DQ the batter. However, if I smelled deceit by coach, batter out for interference (really stretching NFHS 7-3-5) or "abandoning" (really stretching 10-2-3-g)."

There is an analogy here, both were batters running when the shouldn't and I think my confused (not dumb) or deceitful point applies here too. You said runners off at the pitch, which implies stealing and if so, leave them there. If you think the batter ran to deceive the defense, then deal with it, but you still can't return the other runners because the ball is live and (as mo99 said) the defense is supposed to know what's going on.

Dakota · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 26, 2003, 02:23pm

Cecil,

As you can tell from my post just above yours, I have a different view on the USC application here.

Being deceitful is not against the rules so long as it does not become interference or obstruction. Signs from the 3B coach. Signals from the catcher to the pitcher. Changeup. Rise ball. Fake throw. Fake bunt. etc. etc.

A batter running to 1B on a dropped 3rd strike is not interference, by rule. A batter leaving the batter's box on a pitch with the count at 3 balls is not illegal, by rule.

I maintain, coached or not, this is not USC, but legal deception.

CecilOne · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 12:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Cecil,

As you can tell from my post just above yours, I have a different view on the USC application here.
... snip ...

Right, this case is very different from the other one. The point I was trying to make both times was not so much about the USC as about being attentive enough to make a judgement as to what was going on, when the runners left, whether it was an USC sutuation, etc. The only reason I included USC this time was that rj40 seemed to be implying it might be with the question "Also has anyone seen this tactic done on purpose and what would you do if you thought it was?". My "deal with it" was also not necessarily USC, possibly a warning, possibly just trying harder to stop the runner (like yelling "BAAAALLLLL" louder as we said with "STRRRIIIIKE" in the other topic.