Rules interpreter?
 

fdt92, can you say who wrote that interpretation?

Willing to bet the initials are WS.

The "time" recommendation mirrors the ASA case play ruling from KR; again with no real rules support.

Joe Brown is the state rule interpreter.
http://www.taso.org/chapter-directory/softball

Thought so
 

I thought he was the interpreter for TASO.

Much simpler to just call "BALL THREE!" as the batter takes off, and then let things play out. If F2 is still fooled into allowing the runner to advance to second without a throw, oh well. As for the batter, give her the benefit of the doubt that she lost count. If it happens again, then it's probably time for a warning for the head coach to knock it off.

My bad. WS is the official state rule interpreter for UIL, which is the state organization; TASO is, as best I recall the story, the remnants of the organization UIL pretty much ran out of business.

Lone Star High School Umpire Association
 

Lone Star is the group of that was previously aligned with UIL. It is a softball only association where TASO represents all sports and including some softball areas. Walt is our rules interpreter.

Manny, I agree with adding, "Batter, in the box, please" to the end of that call. At that point, the clock starts on being prepared for the next pitch.

AFA the TASO comment, just using the word trickery in defending the ruling makes me question it.

"Batter, in the box, please." Like it. Might be easier in ASA (batter must be in the box within 10 seconds of being directed) than FED (within 10 seconds of the pitcher receiving the ball, catcher in position).

If there were no runners on, maybe, but the batter wouldn't pull that stunt then anyway.

If the whole purpose of her act is to advance her runners, through deception or whatever, F2 is likely throwing the ball to 3B or 2B or cocking back to fire it somewhere while she thinks it out...
Is the 10-second clock really running at that point?

If she left the box when not permitted, it doesn't take that long. No, if there is an on-going play, the clock does not start at that point, but the direction of the umpire is another indicator she is not a BR.

Along the train of thought of killing the ball, what are you going to do when a catcher who is on the ball guns out one of the advancing runners? Is it fair to take away the defense's opportunity to retire an active runner?

Absolutely not fair to deny defense a chance for an out.
What I have had happen on more than one occasion is, batter heads up the line on ball 3 (mistakenly), runners from 1B & 2B hesitantly leave for the next base ("wasn't that ball 3? no? ok..."), and are thrown out by a mile (if F2 is on her toes).

If they all leave like they're entitled to do so, then we as umps know it's likely a ploy; still no reason to kill the ball, but I would guess a good time to tell the coach to cut the crap.

90% of the time, if you simply state Ball 3, while catcher has the ball, they are going to clue in and throw out the runner. That will put a VERY quick stop to this stupid strategy.

ASA 8-7-P cant apply to BR running on Ball 3 as this rule is for "runners who have scored or been put out". This offensive player is still just a batter, and has not committed INT simply by not knowing the count and running on ball three, shame on F2 for attempting to throw out the batter (not a runner or batter-runner) at 2B.

The defense has to know the count and the situation. As others have stated I will announce "That was ball three!" if I see batter run on ball three but unless i do it so forcefully as to bring play to a stop more often than not these announcements usually go unnoticed. I would not have INT here absent some other obvious action by the count confused batter such as her kicking the ball away from a defensive player or some such.

WS is the state interpreter for Lone Star High School Softball Officials organization.