NFHS D3K rule clarification

[RKBUmp]

Id swear I have seen an NFHS case play, rule clarification or actual test questions that deals with a batter running on strike 2 and not strike 3. Im looking through the case book and the closest I can find is a batter attempting to advance on a D3k with 1st occupied and less than 2 outs. Anyone have a case citation, the test question or rule clarification? Need to try and find something actually published and in writing.

[BretMan]

I know there's a case play about a batter heading to first base on ball three, instead of ball four. It's 3.6.13(B).

And it's a rather Draconian case play. It says that if the umpire judges this to be an intentional act (mind reader?) he can eject the player!

I've wondered if this same ruling could apply when a batter runs on an uncaught strike two. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Both involve a batter running to first base, mimicking a batter-runner, when not entitled to, apparently to gain some sort of advantage over the defense.

[RKBUmp]

Bret, thanks. I have an email in to my state NFHS interpreter asking for at least a state clarification on the situation.

All goes back to my got to vent thread. Same umpire involved in todays games. Did you know a ball hitting the foul pole and coming back into fair territory is a live ball? Did you also know when the pitching plate is at 43' and is suppose to be at 40' all the umpire has to do is scratch a line on the ground with his foot and that is the official new pitching plate? At least that what he says the athletic association told him to do. And obviously we had an interference call on our batter for running on strike 2.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I know there's a case play about a batter heading to first base on ball three, instead of ball four. It's 3.6.13(B).

And it's a rather Draconian case play. It says that if the umpire judges this to be an intentional act (mind reader?) he can eject the player!

I've wondered if this same ruling could apply when a batter runs on an uncaught strike two. Wouldn't that be the same thing? Both involve a batter running to first base, mimicking a batter-runner, when not entitled to, apparently to gain some sort of advantage over the defense.

I don't see why we couldn't use the guidance in FED case play 8.1.1.B, where the umpire announces forcefully, "BATTER'S OUT!" when she can't run to first on the U3K. That's what I've done in the past. I simply say out loud, "THAT'S BALL 3!" or "THAT'S STRIKE 2!" when the batter takes off and her at-bat isn't completed.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't see why we couldn't use the guidance in FED case play 8.1.1.B, where the umpire announces forcefully, "BATTER'S OUT!" when she can't run to first on the U3K. That's what I've done in the past. I simply say out loud, "THAT'S BALL 3!" or "THAT'S STRIKE 2!" when the batter takes off and her at-bat isn't completed.

That's exactly what I do. The difference I see is that in the case play you quoted the batter really has completed her at-bat.

If it's only strike two, or ball three, she hasn't. And the case play that calls for an ejection involves a batter who hasn't completed her at-bat.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Id swear I have seen an NFHS case play, rule clarification or actual test questions that deals with a batter running on strike 2 and not strike 3. Im looking through the case book and the closest I can find is a batter attempting to advance on a D3k with 1st occupied and less than 2 outs. Anyone have a case citation, the test question or rule clarification? Need to try and find something actually published and in writing.

I don't have the specifics of the play.

Here is what I think I would do, as I read the play.

There are several factors to consider.

First, were any runners on base when this occurred? If there are, and they advance because of the runner batter going to first on D2K, we have a potential situation.

Second, was the count announced before the pitch? If there is a pretty good reason to believe the batter and the catcher knew the count was 1 strike, not two strikes, it can impact the ruling.

Now, for my rulings.

On a D2K with nobody on, when she starts running, I'm simply yelling, "that's strike 2" when she takes off. This is similar to yelling "Batter's Out" on a D3K with first base occupied and less than 2 outs.

If there is a runner on base, who advances, but the ball gets by the catcher on D2K, and I fell there is no chance to put out the runner, I'm again yelling that's strike 2, and the advancement is legal.

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

This would be a situation that, if I had partners I would be getting with them, and a call would be made as a crew based on what each umpire witnessed on the play.

I simply can't say that there is one correct answer on this play, because each situation would be different.

[RKBUmp]

In any rules clinic I have ever attended both asa and nfhs we have always been taught the onus is on the defense and make the appropriate play for the situation. The case play for nfhs bretman has posted deals with a batter advancing on ball 3 but is very similar in result with a runner advancing. That case play says the defense should be aware of the count and the appropriate play. Exactly what has been taught in rules clinics. I need to find something that has actually been published through nfhs with regard to a batter running on strike 2. It involves a protest.

[PATRICK]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Rule cite please.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...Second, was the count announced before the pitch? If there is a pretty good reason to believe the batter and the catcher knew the count was 1 strike, not two strikes, it can impact the ruling.

Irrelevant.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Where we have an issue is if the batter takes off on D2K, and the catcher throws to first to retire this runner and a runner from 2nd or 3rd successfully advances on the play, as a result of the throw going to first base, then we have interference by the batter, that batter would be out and the runners would go back to the base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Where is the interference?

The simple fact is, there is none. The batter did not prevent the defense from making any plays on anyone. This is nothing more than a DMC because she threw the ball when she should have known she didn't have to.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. When a batter/retired batter runs to first base when she shouldn't, the only way you have interference if the catcher throws to first is if she's making a pickoff play on the runner at first base diving back, and the ball hits the batter/retired batter.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't see why we couldn't use the guidance in FED case play 8.1.1.B, where the umpire announces forcefully, "BATTER'S OUT!" when she can't run to first on the U3K. That's what I've done in the past. I simply say out loud, "THAT'S BALL 3!" or "THAT'S STRIKE 2!" when the batter takes off and her at-bat isn't completed.

+

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't see why we couldn't use the guidance in FED case play 8.1.1.B, where the umpire announces forcefully, "BATTER'S OUT!" when she can't run to first on the U3K. That's what I've done in the past. I simply say out loud, "THAT'S BALL 3!" or "THAT'S STRIKE 2!" when the batter takes off and her at-bat isn't completed.

The only downside to that approach is if you have lost the count, and deprive the (now) batter-runner of the opportunity to advance on the dropped third strike, and equally deprive the defense of the opportunity to make the out. You would be forced to award first base, because you killed it before the defense completed the out.

And if actually Ball 4, you can be sure the OC will tell you they had a play on that you stopped them from running.

[RKBUmp]

Well, got an official interpretation of the rule, but now my daughter who is actually the coach is so fed up she doesnt want to pursue the protest. She has given all the information to her principal and letting him deal with it.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Well, got an official interpretation of the rule, but now my daughter who is actually the coach is so fed up she doesnt want to pursue the protest. She has given all the information to her principal and letting him deal with it.

I am sure the ruling was what you and others thought.........

[RKBUmp]

Yes sir. No interference, run should have scored and batter returned to bat.