NFHS D3K rule clarification
 

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rule cite please.

Irrelevant.

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.

+

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.

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.........

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

I can solve this issue. Drop the rule. It wasn't always part of the game, so maybe everyone would be better off without it.

If that was the rule I would be fine with it. The problem is one particular person that keeps getting assigned to our games even after detailing a full page worth of rules he has miss applied or invented in his own mind. Not to mention showing up 15 minutes late for one and 30 minutes late for another.

Who is assigning the umpire?

It is a charter school athletic association. I dont think they really care, they are just putting bodies on the field and collecting their fees from the schools.

What is the definition of interference?

The key part for this discussion can be "who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder"

If a batter runner takes off running to first base is she not illegally doing something because she is not entitled to do it? She is not entitled to run to first base on a D2K, so by doing something she is not entitled to do is she illegally doing that act?


One other thing to consider. What about the coach who, when the 2nd strike is dropped yells to the batter to run. Is this not a verbal act to confuse the fielder?

Just something to think about.

The defense is responsible for knowing the count and where the appropriate play is at. Numerous threads covering the subject, it is not interference.

Fixed it for you. ILLEGALLY. That word matters.

Is the batter-runner legally allowed to advance to first base on a dropped second strike? If she is not doing a legal act would that make the act illegal?

No, someone being confused does not constitute interference. Over the years I've seen and heard too many people use that to try to talk someone into the interference ruling.

The problem with your argument is that in the definition of interference is does specifically use the word confuse (actually confuses).

Rule cite, please, where a batter running toward 1B is illegal.

You're taking the general definition of interference out of context. You have to understand how the word "confuses" applies under certain scenarios to deem if interference actually takes place. There are many ways an offense player can confuse a defensive player and it not be anything close to interference.

Suppose a runner at second bluffs a steal of third, the catcher throws to third to make a play on her, and she sails the ball down the left field line, allowing the runner to come all the way home. Are you going to rule interference on the runner because she confused the catcher into throwing the ball when she didn't have to?

How about when a batter shows bunt, causing the first and third basemen to move in, and then the batter swings away for a hit over one of their heads. Yup, the batter confused the fielders into a position where they couldn't make the play on the ball. Is that cause for an interference call?

Had this one in my last game as I was BU: Runner at first with a Three-Ball count on the batter. She "steals" on Ball Four, and the catcher throws to second base. The sliding runner is hit by the throw, and the ball bounces away, allowing her and the BR to advance another base. She confused the catcher into making an unnecessary throw due to the walk, so in your mind that should be ruled interference, right?

And here's one more that I actually saw as a LL Baseball umpire involving my son: Runners on first and third, and the batter receives Ball Four. The BR jogs to first, R2 saunters to second, and R1 (my son) casually trots home. He scores as the catcher walks toward the pitcher to give him the ball back. EVERYBODY was confused with that one since nobody on defense yelled, "Tag him!" If this happened in a FED softball game, an interference call on this one would cause a riot.

Don't read just the minimum amount to argue a point. Know the full context on what the rulemakers intended with their words.

I invite you to find any rule that says this act is illegal. It is not.

But "confuses" in that context is for the non-contact things like waving arms, jumping up and down; not physically impeding the fielder or ball, but confusing in the sense of distracting or disconcerting.

Agreed, not the faking/deceiving examples above by Manny.

The problem is there is nothing that says it is a legal act either. Nowhere in the rules does it say running to 1st base on a dropped second strike is a legal act. You are correct it does not specify it is illegal, but at the same time it does not specify the act as an allowable action of the batter either. That is my point which some of you are to thick headed to understand.

I don't think it says taking practice swings, spitting or chewing gum is illegal either. :D

The point being that generally, if it doesn't say (or define) that it is illegal, it isn't and would then be legal.
right?

As stated above, the rule book does not list every permissible act. But it does list illegal acts, and any act not listed as illegal would by omission not be illegal.

The ASA case play on D3K situations is pretty specific the defense is repsonbile for knowing the count and the situation.

Whoa, what's with the insult?

Your problem is that you want everything to be black or white. The truth is, there's plenty of gray in the rules. And that's where umpires earn their stripes, dealing with that gray such that neither team is disadvantaged.

Just yesterday, I worked bases in a HS conference first-round playoff game. The weather was not favorable; we had a good drenching an hour before game time, and it rained off and on after we started. The home team pitcher had a pretty long towel hanging out of her back pocket to dry her hand between pitches.

When she came to bat, my partner directed her to remove the towel and put it in the dugout. Why? Probably because he didn't want a situation where a pitch hits the towel.

Was it illegal for her to have that towel in her pocket? Nope; there's no rule that says that. So does that make it legal? Not necessarily; if it was legal, then my partner couldn't make her take it out. He did something to nip a potential problem in the bud. Nobody complained.

The same is true here. There's no black and white rulings when a batter takes off for first when she doesn't become a batter-runner. You yourself said you would announce "That's Strike Two!" to try and nip that in the bud. That's what I would do. And if the catcher still makes a throw, then that's on her for not paying attention.

Insults are not necessary.

So, you assume that everything must be explicitly declared legal, else it is illegal?

Nonsense.

And, you would have this batter declared out? You DO need a rule for that! What is your rule?

I've had JV players twice this year run on an uncaught 2nd strike, and a varsity players who went to 1B on ball one. :eek:

In each case I called time once the ball was in circle and all action complete, turned to the batter standing on 1B and said "Miss? Would you like to finish your turn at bat?" :rolleyes:

Totally unacceptable. :(

Y'all are being way too sensitive. How can anyone possibly react to an incomplete comparison.

It should probably say "some of you are to thick headed" as "grilled ribs are to boiled ribs".

We just haven't figured out who "thick headed" is in the comparative equation. :)

Can you imagine how enormous a list of every thing you can legally do would be? Just listing "allowable actions by the batter" would be 20 pages long. Expecting such a list is rather ridiculous.

The book tells you what you CAN'T do. Generally, if it's not illegal ... it's legal.

Had the coach last week upset because opposing F1 was taking a signal from the dugout prior to being on the plate.

Rule says F1 must take or simulate taking a signal while on the pitching plate. Does not say when and where else she may take a signal and more importantly does not say taking a signal elsewhere is illegal.