Ball 4 throw to first?
 

I saw this one the other day. Nothing illegal, and it's actually a smart play if executed properly and the offensive team bites (which they did not).

3-1 count on the batter, with a runner on third base. Ball 4 comes in, I call ball 4. Batter-runner heads to first. All of the sudden the catcher pops up and throws to F3 who goes to cover the base.

Everyone knew there was no play on the batter-runner going to first base. The idea behind the play is to get the runner to start coming home on the throw to third, throw quickly back to the catcher to tag the lead runner out.

In this case the runner at third did not bite, likely because the defensive coach was yelling "We are going to run play 1" from the 3rd base dugout so everyone could hear, including the 3rd base coach and runner.

It does bring up a question though.

Ball 4, batter- runner goes to first in fair territory. The throw hits her in the back on her way there and deflects away. The runner at third comes home? What's the ball?

My only call, assuming the runner touches home plate while coming home is safe. No interference because the throw hitting the batter-runner does not interfere with a play being made on the batter-runner since she is advancing to an awarded base.

In ASA it is nothing. I believe, however, NFHS has an interpretation that this could be considered a 3' lane violation

If my memory serves me correctly there have been a number of threads regarding F2 throwing to F3 while the Batter-Runner advances to 1B after receiving Ball 4. And if my memory still serves me correctly in the twisted bizzaro rule of FP softball the B/R has committed interference.

MTD, Sr.

Irish is correct, NFHS does consider it interference if the batter/runner is out of the running lane even though there is no play at 1st. Their ruling is even awarded bases have to be run legally.

And as said, in ASA it is nothing.

If this ever happened I could see something else happening soon after. Coach you need to head for the parking lot.

The explanation given by an NFHS interpretation is that especially with R1 on 3B, many times BR will continue to 2B, or at least make a big turn at 1B. This is a play.

I don't agree with the logic, because it is a "potential" play, but the interp/rule is what it is.

Yet the catcher waits until the runner gets halfway to 1B for an allegedly potential play? It's a bullshit interpretation

Not to mention its a dumb play anyway. Throwing the ball to 1st never activates the lookback rule so the runner at 3rd can just stand off the base until F3 does finally decide to throw the ball back to the pitcher.

I am going to disagree about it being a dumb play. Only two things have to happen for it to be a very smart play. First, the runner on 3rd needs to not be paying attention. If she takes off home when the throw goes to first, the throw back home should be in time to nail the runner at the plate. Second, the team must execute the play, and actually catch the thrown balls.

As it was also mentioned, this play will also generally force the B-R to stay at first base. Remember the LB rule is not even activated until the BR reaches first base, so even if it is thrown to the pitcher in the circle, the LB rule is not in effect until the B-R touches first.

I agree, it is a BS interpretation on this. In my opinion, the only time interference should be called on a batter-runner who got a base on balls and is advancing to first is if she intentionally interferes with the throw to first base.

This proves inconsistency in the NFHS rules. In most other situations, there needs to be a play being made for interference to be called, but yet in this situation, not play can be made, but we can have interference.

Yes, for a team that doesnt know how to run the bases it will hold runners. A team that does know how to run bases it will do nothing. It doesnt even necessarily hold the runner at 1st. What keeps the runner from just breaking for 2nd as soon as F3 throws the ball back to the pitcher? A team that knows what they are doing and uses the lookback rule will easily get 2 outs on a runner attempting to advance to 2nd on a walk with a runner on 3rd if the team attempts to score the runner.

I agree and here is why.

The throw is non-productive with a relative risk attached. Is not the first rule of any defense is to NOT make unnecessary throws. Every time there is an unnecessary throw, there is the risk of giving the offense additional bases which sort of defeats the purpose.

The ONLY time the catcher should not return the ball to the pitcher is when there is an imminent play. On a BOB, there is no imminent play.

And before you start about holding the runner, can you name any one defender that is closer to EVERY possible play in the infield other than the pitcher in the circle? Which also happens to effect the LBR the moment the BR touches 1B.

During my playing years I played against a team that would (occasionally) throw the ball to F3 after a BB. The timing of the throw was important. F3 would come up the line and as the BR passed, the catcher would throw a soft toss (ostensibly so the fielder's glove didn't make sound alerting the BR) who would then put the glove on the runner hoping they come off the base.

The other teams must have had sleeping 1B coaches.

Sometimes in the middle of a rally, things get loud. If the coach did say something, the player may have been too busy celebrating to pay attention.

And, maybe the coach was looking into the dugout for the next piece of strategy.

Clearly, it doesn't always work.

Lastly, you need an umpire who's paying attention.