I'm not sure what the last 40 days refers to nor who or what kr or jj might be, but ASA directs that you NOT say "Batter's Out". I DISAGREE with it, but that is what we are told and is what I will do until told otherwise.

Maybe I was clarifying that for readers less astute than yourself. :rolleyes:

Since we have some posters saying that we should NEVER use, "Batter out", and some saying that we should, I wanted to make it clear exactly what mechanic we were discussing.

I have been told to not use, "Batter out", as part of my routine strike three call (and I don't). If you just automatically say it on every called third strike then you are eventually going to say it when the batter really isn't out. Then you'll have the fun of dealing with the mess you just made by declaring a batter out who wasn't.

These are two completely different situations, requiring two completely different mechanics. While this might be "Duh" stuff for the experienced umpires here, the difference hadn't really been noted.

Why stop them from going to 3rd?
 

If you let them go to 1st, why stop them from going to 2nd? There's nothing in the rule book to prevent them from going to 2nd.

Sorry! My title should have said 2nd! I fat-fingered it!

Me too.....

Exactly.

Rita:D

[quote=BretMan]I say, "Batter out!", ONLY on an uncaught third strike when the batter isn't entitled to advance, and then ONLY if the batter does actually start to advance (beyond a couple of cursory steps toward first).

So, it's not, "Strike three, batter's out!". It's, "Strike three!", then pause, then read the batter, then emphasize that she's out if she continues advancing.

Add me to this group. I don't think either will disagree with me when I say that the umpire shouldn't be chasing the player down the line or screaming at the top of his/her lungs, just a simple "batter's out" at a voice no louder than the strike call.

This is a situational exception, as BretMan has noted, to the routine mechanic, not a standard mechanic.

As for the 40 Days of Ronald (hey, is that a movie?), I believe he is referring to a recent trip to OKC.

I agree with how Bretman described this situation. ASA does NOT want you to say "Batter's out" as a routine in your called third, but if they start to run and are not entitled to advance I have been instructed to then say "Batter's out, Batter's out" and as Mike said not YELLING it but saying it in the tone you would call a strike in, like loud enough that it should be able to be heard by catcher.

Rule 8. Section 7. THE RUNNER IS OUT.
P. When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes
with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the
interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched
at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled
to run on the dropped third strike rule.

I could swear there was a recent thread about this, but I cannot find it.
As I recall, this was the citation that allows running to 1B, but not beyond 1B.

I think that there was a thread about this on the "Hey Bucket" forum that you and I both participated in a few months ago. But I don't remember any conclusions being drawn about the retired batter not being allowed to go beyond first base, That's a new one for me!

I think it's the logical conclusion to the rule cited by tcannizzo. A retired runner continuing to run and drawing a throw is a form of interference. The recent rewrite and substitution of the word "entitled" mucks up the common interpretation that a batter may mistakenly (or deliberately) run to first base when occupied with less than two out on an uncaught third strike. The defense, and their rat coach, is supposed to know the situation and play accordingly.

Hmm. TWP that I really hesitated to post: R1 on second, R2 on first, one out. B4 strikes out on a pitch in the dirt but runs toward first. R1 and R2 take off. Retired B rounds first and heads toward 2nd, finally drawing a throw. Dead ball, INT, R1 out. Right result? Probably. Because defense was smart, waiting to make a throw on B, and offense was stupid in going past first. If the defense plays on any other runner, call outs or score runs as appropriate. ;)

Please explain how this prohibits running to 2nd, as permitted any time B becomes a BR.

This was part of the discussion on HB, but there was yet another thread somewhere that had more conclusions.
Here is a link http://www.heybucket.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=39124

ASA Rules Clarifications: July 2011
Play: With one out and R1 on 1B, B3 swings at the ball for strike three and the catcher drops the ball. B3 runs toward 1B because the catcher dropped the ball in a) the catcher throws the ball wildly to 1B and the ball goes into RF, b) the catcher throws to pick off R1 but hits the retired B3 in the back with the ball.
Ruling: (Rule 8, Section 7P EFFECT: When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player’s opportunity to make a play on another runner. EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered
a form of interference. This does not applyto the batter-runner running on
the dropped third strike rule.)
It is the responsibility of both the catcher and the batter to know the game situation. The dropped third strike rule is not in effect in this situation; therefore the batter-runner is not running under the dropped third strike rule. If the umpire judges the action of the retired batter to have hindered, impeded, or confused the defense, this is interference. Simply running toward 1B when the dropped third strike rule is not in effect does not constitute interference. With that said in a) if the umpire judged the throw was wild because the catcher made a bad throw, it is not interference. In b) if the umpire judged the thrown ball hitting the retired B3, impeded the defense’s opportunity to execute a play, interference should be called on a retired offensive player and the runner closest to home would be called out as well.

This new wording is awful. If they meant this to mean what they tell us they meant it to mean ... there are at least 3 errors in here.

First - a batter that is out on strikes never becomes a batter-runner.
Second - the added "entitled" now implies a BR that IS allowed to run and is not out... there's no such thing as a retired runner being "entitled" to run.
Third - the former wording that at least tenuously implied the retired runner couldn't continue to 2nd no longer even remotely implies that.

I know this was supposed to be an editorial change, and we are supposed to go with what the rule was all along... but this editorial change is FARTHER than what they wanted, not closer.

By the definitions. Once a BR passes first, no longer a BR, now a runner!! Assumed BR/retired batter may not be prohibited from drawing a throw, but a retired runner certainly is.

Not by definition
 

A Retired Batter Runner never becomes a retired runner. In order to be a retired runner, they first have to be a runner. A runner is an "offensive player who has reached first base AND has not yet been put out or scored". This definition does not apply here. They have been put out and they can't score.

The batter is not even a batter runner by definition or rule. She is a retired batter.