Twice in One Day
 

In back-to-back 16U plate games I did in an ASA tourney yesterday, including the championship game, I had double plays involving a strike-out/throw-out. What was unusual by both was that the batter struck out on a pitch in the dirt, then took off for first base. Despite my calling, "BATTER'S OUT! BATTER'S OUT!" the runner at first hesitated, then took off for second base, easily getting thrown out.

And I thought these 16U travel teams were well-coached! :D

uh oh:(
We don't call Batter's Out....

Is this a softball thing? Just curious. Cause I sure as heck do it in baseball, at all levels.

I've been told by 2 different baseball people (an assigner and a clinician) not to say it in baseball either. At most, hold the OUT signal a little longer. Also, in both, the only other difference I've been told is to not do the Leslie Neilson punch-out on a D3K - just a quick, "Strike three" mechanic.

You just let them run even if they are out?

Rita

Well, just goes to show that clinicians have personal preferences.

We do a loud, "Batter's out! Batter's out!" If we can stop the circus music from playing, all the better.

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.

Unless i miss3d something in the last 40 days, in Asa we do can say batter's out as the pu. Just as .kr and jj. This assumes no right to 1b.

Yes. If F2 makes a play it is DMC.
This has been discussed exhaustively on the forum.

As others have said, simply say Strike 3.
Batter can run to 1B, even if they are out. Only time you kill it is if they try for 2B..

The Leslie Nielsen punch outs are usually reserved for a called strike three. And U3Ks are usually not in the strike zone. But if it is on a called strike because it popped out of the catcher's mitt, it won't just be an "excuse me, strike three", it will be more emphatic, and quite possibly a punch. Maybe just not with the running three-step punch.:D

Exactly

The only time I stop a batter from going to 1B is when it is only "Ball 3" or "Strike 2", and I may not be 100% correct in doing that either.

But then that's what I knew Manny was doing even though he hadn't specified that there were fewer than two outs.

So, no offense, but "duh!" It's always only "Strike three" but if she takes off and she's not entitled, it's "Batter's out! Batter's out!"

But that's for baseball. So you all are saying, one doesn't do it for softball?

Rita

That is correct. We do not do that in FPSB.

News to me.

I didn't think I had to specify, Rita, since the result of both situations was a strike-out/throw-out DP. ;)

I have never been told at any NCAA, ASA, or NFHS clinics I've attended that the "BATTER'S OUT! BATTER'S OUT!" is not an accepted mechanic in this situation. In fact, the CCA Softball Manual instructs the plate umpire to verbalize, "The batter is out," if she tries to advance to first.

I've used it for years in front of numerous tournament UCs, and they've never come up to me afterwards and critiqued me to simply signal the swinging strike.

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.

I agree given the definitions of a batter-runner and a runner however, consider this play: with runners on base, B grounds out 6-3. She is now a retired batter-runner. If she rounds and continues to second base, isn't she considered a retired runner for the purpose of rule 8.7.P?

Probably
 

Probably. However, the difference is that the Batter never became a batter-runner on a D3K when the D3K is not in effect. She is a retired batter. If this is how ASA wants it then they need to clean up the definitions. The ASA rule committee needs to do a better job, in my opinion, in editing the rule book. When they make a change, editorial or an actual rule change, they need to make sure that every rule and definition affected is changed.

All the semantics and poorly worded rules and exceptions aside, the bottom line(s) is/are:

1) Softball rules at every level allow the retired batter to run to first base on a strike out; whether dropped or not, whether the batter is entitled to attempt to advance or not. ASA for one year passed a rule to make that a dead ball if/when it drew a throw, knowing it was being taught to simply confuse catchers, but there was enough outcry that this is an acceptable part of the game that the rule was reversed the following year.

2) Softball rules at every level make it the catcher's responsibility to know the game situation. (Of course, if their coach taught, or coached the catcher, that would be less of an issue.) But, the exception, rule reversal, and even the latest editorial change, poorly worded as it is, are clearly intended to make it solely the defense's responsibility.

3) If the catcher throws anywhere but to attempt an out on another runner, it is simply DMC (dumb move catcher). If the umpire judges a throw to 1st base was to pick off a runner, rather than an attempt to play on the retired batter, the umpire can/may rule interference if the retired batter interferes with that throw (in or out of the running lane). Otherwise, this is a completely legal way to attempt to confuse the defense.

4) The protection in that exception ends with running to first base. If that retired ( offensive player) then attempts beyond first base AND draws a throw, the exception no longer applies, and can (and should) be ruled interference.

5) The NCAA Manual and teachings now include the "safe" signal when it is a dropped third strike with entitlement to run (actually signalling the defenses's need to make a play to retire the batter-runner), as well as to verbalize (but not over-emphasize) "Batter is out", and make secondary hammer signal, if the batter appears to attempt to advance. It seems fair to me that if we are required to indicate when the batter-runner is entitled, then we should equally indicate when she is not. This, of course, is only since the Major League had issues in a big way just a few years back.

6) To my knowledge, neither ASA nor NFHS have firmly adopted any of #5 above; the general consensus appears to poo-poo the safe signal, but allow (but not require) the verbal "Batter is out" when the retired batter attempts to advance. It is clear that no organization desires "Batter is out" routinely; just if/when the apparent effort to run when already retired.

Which brings me back to my OP. The irony of the situation was that not once, but twice, it was the runner at first, not the catcher, who became confused with the game situation. In both cases, R1 failed to realize she had no reason to take off. She saw her teammate take off for first base, and instead of ignoring it, despite my calling the batter out, she tried to advance and was easily thrown out.

I honestly cannot recall ever seeing this happen at such a high level of play. Instead of a DMC, I had a DMR. :D

I noticed you failed to mention the advantage the offense has in this situation, especially the runners at 1st and/or 3rd. You know, the person standing 8' off the line in foul territory who is supposed to know the rules and directed the runners accordingly.

Mb,

Kevin Ryan and Julie Johnson. They direct empires to say batter is out when they are not allowed to run to run1b. 40 days reference to 18g in ok city this year. That was the last time i heard this instruction. Kevin has been directing this from at least 2009. I assume we are talking about about about the plate umpire .

Manny did the right thing.

Joel