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.

I don't necessarily disagree, it is valid reasoning, but you know as well as I that many get themselves into trouble when they try to stretch rules farther than they were meant.

Let me ask you this. If a coach told you he was going to have his batter take off on ball 3, what would you do?

"Coach, I will rule on that, if any ruling is necessary based on what happens as a result; but you need to understand that someone running that isn't legally entitled to COULD be judged as interference."

And when asked for a rule citation? :)

greetings...would telling the coach that attempting to run to first base on ball 3 could be considered a form of delaying the game and citing rule 5-4 e be effective?

I wouldn't use that, unless you really felt that the batter was purposely delaying the game for something very apparent, like approaching darkness or time limit that would give the offense a distinct advantage.

But I suppose you could use 7-3-D about failing to keep one foot in the box between pitches, and issue the appropriate warnings and strike calls. ;)

7-3-d has so many exceptions. Was catcher in catchers box, was pitcher in the circle, did the pitch chase the batter out of the box or as in the original post was there a passed ball?

since most games, rec league games excluded, are timed i like the delay approach a little better. any others agree or disagree?

Of course, I said I was "Stretching to find coverage" ;), using the Batting rule as the player involved was still a batter. ;)

And, was curious about a response. :rolleyes:

Are you prepared to forfeit a game for the purpose of stopping a coach from using a trick play?

The most you can get here is a warning or called strike for the batter leaving the batter's box assuming one of the exception is in effect, which was the case in the OP.

well, i see your point. no i wouldnt be prepared to forfeit the game for the purpose of stopping the coach from using a trick play but i would be if i considered the coaches repetetive tacticts unnecessarily delaying the game. what do you think the best response would be if the coach told you that he was going to have every batter run on ball 3?

Call the ball game as it unfolds in front of me

so would i but what would your response be to a coach who told you that he was going to have every batter run on ball 3?

Stupid coaching. Wouldn't work after the second time (at the latest).

im not sure so thats true but thats not the point we are addressing

Same answer

ok..and after the 6th or 7th time of using this tactic, accomplishing nothing except delaying the game, would you just continue reminding the batter that is was only ball 3 and please come back to the box or would you take another approach?

I'm sensing a bit of troll-ism here.

no..its not that at all. im just looking for the proper way to handle this situation. if im asking to many questions its because im ignorant of what to do. i came on this site because i have been following it and decided to join in. am i taking the wrong approach?..i know irishmafia knows what he is talking about but his answer of "call the game as it unfolds" doesnt really answer my question of what to do. what i read into his answer, if im getting this right, they can run every batter on ball 3 all they want and we have no grounds or rule basis to stop them because they are doing nothing wrong...is that correct? sorry if im giving the wrong impression

But you've been answered 4 times, all the same. And then you reply with a nearly identical situation that has the same answer.

Most of what you just posted is not correct, btw. Go read all of the previous replies, not just Irish.

ok..thank you

My reference to troll-ism is because you're bringing up scenarios that are too far-fetched to be realistic. Six or seven times? I've never seen anything even remotely close.

By rule, you can call a strike on the batter for leaving the box (assuming the exceptions others have cited from the rule do not take place). If the coach wants to accept those strikes, so be it. If you really wanted to pull out the forfeit card because of the game delays, nobody could argue against it. You might even be able to forfeit since the coach is willfully violating rules. But those should be last resorts.

MannyA....thank you very much...now its clear...looking back i see that was what some of the others were trying to explain to me but i just didnt get it for some reason. at times i can be a little thick. thanks for your explanation and for everyones patience. no troll here, just trying to learn a few things

Just received this email (TASO = Texas High School - NFHS)

A few thoughts.

- It should be noted that the case play referenced that calls for a warning/ejection is an NFHS case play.

- I wonder what rule would allow you to call this batter OUT for her "unsporting act"? (Certainly not the one cited in the reply) :confused:

- "Defensive coach complains that this has to be illegal otherwise batter's would do it all the time".

Doesn't the coach have any faith in his player's ability to keep track of the count? Or, for that matter, his own ability to keep track of it and instruct his players accordingly? If it happened "all the time" wouldn't the defense start to catch on after awhile?

(Okay, probably a waste of bandwidth to point out that a coach's agrument might be illogical and stupid! :D)

Nowhere in the case play does it call for an out and even states the teams should be aware of the count and play accordingly. It also makes no mention of time being called. What do you tell the defensive coach who's team has recognized the situation and threw to tag the lead runner, but time was called during live playing action?

I wasn't planning to umpire in Texas anyway. :( :rolleyes:

I'm currently in TX working and checked into maybe working some games while I'm here. From what I have seen it appears a lot of the state split away from taso and went with other organizations.

Well, whoever sent that really added a bunch of "stuff" that isn't supported by any rules I'm aware of. Call Time? Why? Case play 3.6.13B which is cited doesn't say we call Tim. Even in the case play after that one where a coach from the dugout throws an extra ball onto the field, play is not killed immediately.

Call the batter out? Under what rule? Certainly not under the Unsporting Act rule. The only time we call anyone out under 3-16 is when an offensive player is guilty of malicious contact or fighting. And in rule 7 on batters, I see nothing in there justifying an out call here.

And returning the runner is inappropriate. 3.6.13B's last sentence states that the runner's advance is legal. As the case play points out, the onus is on the defense to know the count.

Let me paraphrase.....

Call "TIME" right away
If you think she did it on purpose, call her out and eject her
If you think it was an accident, bring her back and send runners back
Defense needs to be awake
If you don't call "TIME" let the runners stay
Keep the outs if the defense is on the ball....

I'm not seeing where this blurb does anything to help clarify this situation....

Well said! Just adds to the ambiguity. :rolleyes:

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.

I should have read on. I see you already had this covered.