Batter "Walks" on Ball 3
 

A friend called and related this situation.

R1(3rd), R2(2nd) 2 outs. Ball 2/Strike 2 count.
Next pitch is a passed ball, Batter thinking it is Ball 4, takes off for 1st.
As R1 scores and R2 is heading to 3rd, Batter continues past 1st and heads for 2nd.
F2 throws to second to get batter, R2 comes home to score.

This happened in a USSSA 10U game. Umpires discussed the situation and ended up sending R2 back to 3rd and of course batter back to bat with a 3-2 count.

I know if it was you or me, this never would have happened - we would have been loudly announcing the count and Batter would never had made it to first....

But it did happen.

Don't know about USSSA, but few years back ASA issued a controversial game control writeup in the rules and clarifications to call time in these situations to avoid confusion. But, that does not take into account the passed ball in this particular situation. This stance also seem to run contrary to ASA ruling when a batter runs on a d3k when not elligible. In the d3k cases ASA indicates it is the defenses responsibility to know the situation and make the appropriate play.

Personally I would loudly announce that it was only ball 3 and let playing action continue. Realize it is 10U but not a smart move to be throwing behind the lead runner even if there was a legitimate play at 2nd.

There is no rules basis (OK, don't claim to know U-trip, but anywhere else) to have that combination. It's a "please them all" solution, but clearly wrong.

You either have a) "sorry, defense, you should know better", and R2 scores with B5 returning to the plate to complete the at-bat, or b) interference by the individual that isn't a runner drawing a throw, so that individual is out, and dead ball at the time of throw, R1 scores only if has touched home prior to the time of the throw.

Personally, I lean to (b). Don't care what excuse B5 "thought", or that is was 10U, B5 doesn't get to create this attempted play where none exists and defense had a possible legitimate play. I am told U-trip most closely resembles NFHS, and that sanction doesn't allow trickery to deceive the defense.

*****Edit to respond to RKBUmp post while typing....

The ASA interp about defense knowing the situation has been generally limited to F2 throwing to 1st to retire the nonrunner. Continuing past first and drawing a throw has been a violation of ASA 8.7-M by extension to 8.7-P (an offensive team member not entitled to run drawing a throw).

B5 does not qualify for the very specific requirements set forth in 8.7.M or 8.7.P.

AFAIC, this is a DMC and the umpire should clearly have announced the count. However, I doubt that would have stopped the defense from screwing things up.

Obviously, a serious breakdown on everyone's behalf......maybe. I've seen a similar scenario used as a planned play, but without the PB situation.

Nonetheless, I would be hesitant in protecting the defense from themselves at the expense of the offense without support from the book.

BTW, as far as the "but it is 10U" whine, I'd like to point out that there used to be rules which protected this level from such chaotic scenarios. It was the softball community that demanded the participant at this level of play were smart enough to be capable of playing under the rules used by the older levels.

playing under the rules used by the older levels

Perhaps its time to take a long look at those rules. I work a lot of JV games down here these days and sometimes it is a stretch to call them softball games. Good thing we have mercy rules in place. Even with them there are times when the winning team reaches a point where more scoring is pointless and the coach will have base runners step off the base to "create" an out. Maybe a no running on a passed ball would solve some of this. I also think maybe batting through the order once an inning might help. I realize there is a lot of resistance to any of these ideas. Here in Florida the powers that be do not want a tie breaker rule at any level. Just one old umpire with 50+ years experience thoughts.

Actually, way back when the game was getting started, a runner could not score on a passed ball and there was no D3K. IOW, the old 10U rules were pretty much what the game used to look like

http://historum.com/ ;) :p :D

You're not going to get different rules for JV simply because not all JV programs are as bad as you mention. Why burden organizations that have decent teams with tee ball limits? In my old neck, the only thing we had for JV was time limits.

OTOH, we had Varsity games that were similar to what you describe. And coaches on teams that were winning big would stop advancing on passed balls, go "station to station" on base hits, and would purposely leave bases early to stem the flow. It happens.

I don't disagree with anything you state here, Mike. But I want to discuss a different philosophy that could result in a different result. And to generate further discussion.

We know, and have discussed over and over, that the rulebook does not and cannnot cover every possible scenario, exception, what-if play. We, as umpires, are expected to rule on these exceptions to the rules based on the most similar applicable rule, to apply the intent of the rules. Some rules are meant to be narrowly construed as exceptions to the bigger picture; others are meant to help understand the bigger picture.

8.7-M is specific to call interference if a coach runs and draws a throw. 8.7-P is specific to call interference if an already retired runner (or scored runner) continues to run and draws a throw. The exception allows a batter-runner (sic) who is entitled to run on the D3K; we also know, because the case plays say so, that what "they" really allow is a retired batter who has NO right to run on the D3K to run anyway. But that ends at first base, because so does the inappropriate designation of batter-runner!!

Does any rule, case play, or approved ruling specifically allow ANYONE ELSE on the offense who is not currently a runner or batter-runner to simulate legally running the bases and draw a throw? Suppose (yes, third world, but making a point, I hope), that the on-deck batter crossed with the batter who is running with no right to run, and the on-deck batter completed running the to first, and then continued to run to second and draws a throw?? Would you conclude and rule then that since the on-deck batter doesn't meet the specific criteria in 8.7-M or 8.7-P that it was a DMC?? How about if a player ran out of the offensive dugout and started running the bases while the catcher was chasing the passed ball, so that F2 didn't realize it wasn't a legal runner?

I strongly suspect that in these more extreme cases that you would apply 10.1; and I also suspect that your result would be the same penalty as 8.7-M and 8.7-P, because they are the most similar rulings that would guide you in determining the proper result. (Yeah, you would likely have an unsportsmanlike ejection, too, and maybe a coach or two to follow, but that's in addition to the play ruling.)

So, we have two rules that spell out the result if the two most likely categories of offensive team members draw a play where none should exist. We have one very specific and case-play clarified exception; and this play in the OP isn't that, either. Why would we not consider the NEXT most likely category of offensive player that has no right, rhyme or reason to run as an attempt to create the same effect ruled interference by the two most similar rulings?

I don't see why 8.7.M is part .of the discussion about a player, not a coach.

Using ASA rules, what about 7.6.R or 7.6.U for the OP?

There is no 7-5-R, did you mean 7-6-R? I don't see either applying. Batter hasn't hindered the catcher by stepping out of the batters box and has not interfered with a play at home plate.

Yes, edited.

Stretching to find coverage in light of the discussion.

"stepping out of the batters box":
takes off for 1st.

"interfered with a play at home":
F2 throws to second to get batter, R2 comes home to score.

In my mind, 8.7-M is part of the discussion because it relates to another but different offensive team member that is penalized for running and creating a play where none should exist. Since this person is not a batter-runner, nor a runner, nor a retired, nor a scored runner, it's not different in effect from the on-deck batter, a player in the dugout, or even a coach. Why arbitrarily limit the discussion to players?

There is a passed ball which is an exception to 7.3.D

Look up the definition of "play". There was no attempt to retire the runner therefore there is no play with which to interfere.