jeopardy
 

Is this "jeopardy" in the umpires rule sense?

Runner on 1st, 2 outs. Batter takes an uncaught strike 3.
Plate umpire, not thinking 2 outs, says "batter out".
Catcher roll ball into infield while BR advances to 1st, other runner to 2nd.

Is this a jeopardy for the defense which the umpire should rectify, or
is this a case of the players (e.g., in this play the catcher) should know the rule?

Please state which rules book if you think they differ.

My opinion, catcher needs to know the situation. No way you can rightfully call that batter-runner out, as the defense simply hasn't put her out, in any rule set.

Similar situations. 1) If umpire tells a player the wrong number of outs, player's responsibility regardless. Too bad, they should get it from their scorekeeper. 2) If umpire called "Time" in the middle of playing action, instead of "batter's out", it's a dead ball, batter-runner awarded first.

Never called a batter "out" on strikes unless the retired batter heads toward 1B when not entitled. Nor would I suggest verbalizing it as part of a call.

I feel once the PU calls batter out he is saying the pitch was NOT in the dirt, so it's over at that point. Just like a ref. can't undo a play killed once he blows the whistle.

THE PLATE UMPIRE THOUGHT The batter was not entitled because of the runner at 1st.
Are you saying not to verbalize when that is the case? IOW, let the players figure it out for themselves?

You might be missing the point. It was obviously uncaught. The mistake was calling the batter out when not.
Are you saying the mistaken "out" call can't be ignored?

In the OP there were two outs so she certainly was.

Right, corrected the post above with "THE PLATE UMPIRE THOUGHT "

This part should be fixed - doesn't matter how many outs - don't say "batter out on strike three".

That said, in your sitch I agree with the previous answers.

Except that you do if there is one out and the batter starts to run toward an occupied first base. So, sure he should have known the batter could run but perhaps he had the wrong number of outs in his head.

Yes, but you definitely don't have it as part of your pitch call like so many do... "Strikethreebattersout" should never happen.

I would say batter's out in your situation. And might also in an unclear catch-no-catch by the catcher when I'm calling a catch. But not immediately after the pitch call - and usually while pointing to the catcher's glove.

But it isn't. The ball remains live, and a misapplied rule can (and should) be corrected.

So, you say yes to my OP question.

Your original response included "My opinion, catcher needs to know the situation", which made me think you were saying no. That is, ignore the mistake and let the BR be safe. :confused:

Yes, that's what he said.

You're confused because the misapplied rule here was the PU ruling the batter out. He is still saying the same thing.

Oh yeah, I see.

My original question was whether this mistake by the PU should be rectified. IOW whether it qualifies under the jeopardy rule.

That would mean, IF he could judge that IF the catcher had not been told an out, would she have tried a play at 1st and PROBABLY gotten the out.

Notice - BIG IFs and a BIG reach by the ump to ASSUME an out if played at 1st are a separate question.