ASA ball on batter
 

a ball on the batter should be called when the catcher fails to return the ball directly to the pitcher as required.....no runners on base, the catcher accidently overthrows the pitcher when returning a pitched ball. the shortstop chases the errant throw and picks it up behind second base and returns it to the pitcher......do you call a ball on the batter for this?

No

thank you

Not a NCAA ump, but there is no way I would call this, unless I was 100% sure it was intentionally being done.

If it is simply an overthrow, I have nothing. If I know a team is warming up a new pitcher, and all of the sudden the ball is thrown on the fly to the CF, then something is amiss. If it happens more than once, something's amiss.

A variation on this question that came up this weekend.

No runners, 3-1 count on the batter, pitch is swung at and missed, F2 does not catch the ball, batter takes off for first (thinking U3K), F2 retrieves ball and throws to first.

BU kills the play and awards Ball 4 to the batter for F2 failing to return the ball directly to the pitcher. His reasoning was that there was no play at first, so the ball shouldn't have been thrown there.

My thought is that there is no way that I am rewarding that batter that ran when she shouldn't have.

Thoughts?

Possibly technically correct, mistakes not being one of the listed exceptions; but certainly not in the intent. :eek:

The BU is an idiot. PU not far behind for allowing it to occur. Hey, you asked for my thoughts and that is the first thing that came to mind.

You forgot to apologize to all idiots for sullying their reputation by being associated with this guy.

OOO.

Maybe he should've given the batter a warning for not keeping one foot in the batter's box, too, huh?

The next time I make this call will be the first.

I have never had to make it and have seen it called exactly twice. Once in club ball at the Louisville tournament in CO and once in a college game in Georgia.

That is definitely a problem. NCAA rules don't award a ball when the catcher throws to 1st if the batter runs when not entitled to. 10.16 Exception 6

The original post was in regard to an overthrow of the pitcher into center field. Later a comment was brought up about a ball that was awarded when a runner mistakenly ran to 1st.

My comment was in regard to the call in general when the catcher throws the ball to anyone other than the pitcher. I have never had to make the call and have seen it made twice. Both times it was the correct call.

I, too, have seen it called once or twice. In both cases, the pitch was strike two with no runners on base. The catcher mistakenly thought it was strike 3 for a strike out and proceeded to throw the ball "around the horn".

This would be a proper application of the rule.

Umpires need to use some common sense here. Unless you are dealing with a Rube Baker, I'm not making that call unless it delays the game.

Right, all that's left to do is explain to the OC your reasoning for not calling it. Believe me, most college coaches are fully aware of this rule. Delaying the game is never mentioned in the NCAA book.

I disagree. I suspect that very very few NCAA coaches know the ASA rule.

Now, back to the question... Mike - coming from where you're coming from, I'm very curious given your response. If the situation Andy described is not what ASA wants this rule used for, then what is the point of the rule?

And if it's delay, why have the rule at all - we already have rules about how quickly a pitcher must pitch ... so what would the intent be of the "ball on the batter" rule... when SHOULD we use it, in your opinion?

That is nothing more than a blind assumption with little to no evidence to back it up, but that's not important. I realize the OP is about ASA, but since NCAA has been mentioned, I wasn't sure if Mike was speaking code specific or umpiring in general.

I would bet many college coaches do know the rule, because in the college game I saw it called in it was actually the offensive coach that argued for the call.

Batter had a 1-1 count, called strike on outside corner and catcher fires ball to 1st believing it to be strike 3. Umipire gives count of 1-2 and offensive coach immediately calls time and approaches PU. I can only hear bits and pieces of the conversation but the coach asked the umpire if it was not a rule if the ball was not returned immediately to the pitcher it was a ball to the batter. The umpire had to agree it was in fact a rule and went back behind the plate and made the count 2-2.

Now that being said, the argument did not exactly work in the offensive coaches favor. I would have to say the next pitch did not look like it was any where near the strike zone and he rang the batter up on a called 3rd strike.

Thanks RK. I agree that the NCAA coaches likely know most of the NCAA rules.

I have heard the supposed reasoning behind this particular rule was from the Men's FP game several years ago.

Teams got in the habit of the catcher throwing the ball back to F5 after every pitch who would just lob it to the pitcher from a very short distance. Well this grew into F5 walking the ball back to the pitcher after every pitch and giving a little pep talk.

I don't know if there is any truth to that, but I can certainly accept this as most of the Men's FP pitchers I have seen are extreme primma donnas....

I'm speaking in a general manner. The purpose of this rule is purely game control that need not be a "gotcha" especially led to it by the opposition.

I am certainly not calling a ball and a crap throw back to the pitcher.

But it does raise an interesting issue that spreads throughout these threads like cancer. It's the case of, "You don't know what the intent was so just call the play according to the book. Who are you to ignore a rule or apply it however you want? Oh, but by the way, I can do that because it's me and not you, so ha."

This is why clinics exist - to allow the national organizations disseminate information uniformly. It also helps people here that we have more than one person who are in those rooms when these things are discussed - we get it first hand.