default
Member
^^^ Or even to the fielder who thought she could tag the runner out and tried to chase her down and never caught her, instead of making a throw. BTW, I see that all the time. Rundowns might be the worst thing softball teams perform.
default
Member
There is NO ERROR on this play. F9 made a proper throw, and the other fielders tried to get an out. No misplay on the ball was made (dropped ball, bad throw) and the runner ended up safe. Why does there need to be an error on a runner being safe? Maybe she is fast and beat the throw? Under this idea of an error "MUST" be assigned, there would be no infield hits, since the runner should have been out on all ground balls fielded cleanly. Or even a hit to the outfield, since the outfielders should have fielded quickly and make a throw to get the out. This makes no sense.
Sometimes the offense just makes a better play than the defense, and NO ERROR should be charged to the defense because of it. You can argue all you want about "the throw shouldn't have been made" but no misplay on the ball occurred, and there is no definition to assign an error for bad judgment.
Sometimes the offense just makes a better play than the defense, and NO ERROR should be charged to the defense because of it. You can argue all you want about "the throw shouldn't have been made" but no misplay on the ball occurred, and there is no definition to assign an error for bad judgment.
default
Member
default
Member
Here is the link:
http://nfca.org.ismmedia.com/ISM2/MultimediaManager/ATEC.pdf
j - No error is charged on a wild throw in a rundown which allows a runner to return safely to her original base.
k - If a wild throw or dropped catch would not have been in time to cause an out, no error is charged unless an additional base is gained.
I still don't know how I would score this!!!
http://nfca.org.ismmedia.com/ISM2/MultimediaManager/ATEC.pdf
j - No error is charged on a wild throw in a rundown which allows a runner to return safely to her original base.
k - If a wild throw or dropped catch would not have been in time to cause an out, no error is charged unless an additional base is gained.
I still don't know how I would score this!!!
default
Member
From a scoring standpoint it must be stipulated how the Runner advance to third. For the young Girls, I would just advance her on the throw, but that is not the proper way to score it. If there was a rundown and the Runner advanced, unfortunately that is someone's fault and that person should be awarded an error.
default
Member
OK, Serene, if you want to discuss we can.
On the throw by F9, even being off-line, there was no expectation that the throw would have resulted in an out, as the runner was not going. That is customarily the definition of an error - a misplay that would have gotten an out otherwise. The throw was not made to get the runner out at third. The ball was retrieved in time so that the runner STILL could not advance. So can we agree there is no error on the throw by F9 - since the (off-line) throw was not made to get an out? So now the possible error occurred during the rundown - in which the runner tried to advance at her own risk of being put out.
Now the runner is stuck between 2nd and 3rd, and ends up being safe at 3rd not by a dropped ball or bad throw. This is where the speed comment came in, or possibly her ability to avoid a tag, etc.; or she could have been safe because the defenders involved in the run down don't know how to do it. But because an out was NOT made, it "has to be an error"? What expectation that an out is going to be made in that situation? Yes, at higher level play, there is an expectation that an out is to be made, just like a normal ground ball or a routine fly ball results in an out. But on non-routine plays an out is NOT expected, and therefore a call of safe is not dependent upon an error being assigned. This is why, many times, a hit is scored for a play that would not have resulted in an out, even if a ball was bobbled or throw was off-line. An example would be a ground ball hit to the hole that most players would not have made but the SS did manage to get to it (in the OF grass) and either bobbled it or made a weak throw or no throw at all. Or a blooper behind 1st that neither F3, F4 or F9 could catch cleanly, but a diving attempt by one resulted in the ball dropping fair (think trapped ball here, or the glove touching the ball but no real chance that the catch would have been made) and the batter being safe. There was not an expectation that, even without the bobble or weak throw/no throw or the dive/trap, an out would have resulted. No errors are assigned on those cases by most, if not all, score keepers. Again, just because the runner was safe does not automatically mean an error occurred. What about a true line drive single to right that F9 threw to 2nd instead of trying to get the batter/runner out at 1st? Is that an error too?
I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my point. If not, I apologize for not stating my case clear enough for you to understand what I am trying to say. I guess we will just need to disagree on what our definition of error is. I understand your opinion, but I don't think an error should be assigned in this situation, as described. Mine is more based on the expectation that the play would have resulted in an out if not for a physical misplay. If we could get ME (mental error) as a valid scorebook result, then I think we'd agree, but since it's not an option, I'd rather stick to physical errors that directly result in missed outs.
On the throw by F9, even being off-line, there was no expectation that the throw would have resulted in an out, as the runner was not going. That is customarily the definition of an error - a misplay that would have gotten an out otherwise. The throw was not made to get the runner out at third. The ball was retrieved in time so that the runner STILL could not advance. So can we agree there is no error on the throw by F9 - since the (off-line) throw was not made to get an out? So now the possible error occurred during the rundown - in which the runner tried to advance at her own risk of being put out.
Now the runner is stuck between 2nd and 3rd, and ends up being safe at 3rd not by a dropped ball or bad throw. This is where the speed comment came in, or possibly her ability to avoid a tag, etc.; or she could have been safe because the defenders involved in the run down don't know how to do it. But because an out was NOT made, it "has to be an error"? What expectation that an out is going to be made in that situation? Yes, at higher level play, there is an expectation that an out is to be made, just like a normal ground ball or a routine fly ball results in an out. But on non-routine plays an out is NOT expected, and therefore a call of safe is not dependent upon an error being assigned. This is why, many times, a hit is scored for a play that would not have resulted in an out, even if a ball was bobbled or throw was off-line. An example would be a ground ball hit to the hole that most players would not have made but the SS did manage to get to it (in the OF grass) and either bobbled it or made a weak throw or no throw at all. Or a blooper behind 1st that neither F3, F4 or F9 could catch cleanly, but a diving attempt by one resulted in the ball dropping fair (think trapped ball here, or the glove touching the ball but no real chance that the catch would have been made) and the batter being safe. There was not an expectation that, even without the bobble or weak throw/no throw or the dive/trap, an out would have resulted. No errors are assigned on those cases by most, if not all, score keepers. Again, just because the runner was safe does not automatically mean an error occurred. What about a true line drive single to right that F9 threw to 2nd instead of trying to get the batter/runner out at 1st? Is that an error too?
I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my point. If not, I apologize for not stating my case clear enough for you to understand what I am trying to say. I guess we will just need to disagree on what our definition of error is. I understand your opinion, but I don't think an error should be assigned in this situation, as described. Mine is more based on the expectation that the play would have resulted in an out if not for a physical misplay. If we could get ME (mental error) as a valid scorebook result, then I think we'd agree, but since it's not an option, I'd rather stick to physical errors that directly result in missed outs.
default
Member
This has generated a lot more replies than I ever would have thought ... I'm still with Wookie on this one ... no error ... runners can just advance on throws and fielder's choices ... the runner outsmarted the fielders
default
Member
My expectation is not for an out. My expectation is for the runner to return to second. Was there a dropped ball or bad throw in this instance? If it was not an error that allows her to reach third, I would score it as a fielders choice.
default
Member
In this scenario there has to be an error charged to someone. If the catch and subsequent throw forced the runner at second to retreat toward second, then we must assume had the throw not been off the mark to third then the runner never would have advanced. When the throw went errant and the runner started advancing toward third this is basically a new play starting and everything that happened before it is not important. But if the ball got to third before the runner and forced them to retreat again toward second, and the subsequent rundown between fielders resulted in the runner reaching third then an error has to be charged to someone.
Big difference if the runner advances to third on the flyout, which was not the case in this situation by the sounds of things.
Big difference if the runner advances to third on the flyout, which was not the case in this situation by the sounds of things.
default
Member
Jeff,
If I remember the play correctly they base ended up being uncovered. I don't think it was an error at all. JMHO.
If I remember the play correctly they base ended up being uncovered. I don't think it was an error at all. JMHO.
default
Member
Then I would score it as a fielders choice. I believe if it was a batted ball and the batter runner kept advancing while a fielder holds the ball I believe the batter runner gets credit for as many bases as they get. That being the case....could you possibly make the arguement for a stolen base? Just askin....
default
Member
If the bag was uncovered, the Runner advanced to third via Defensive Indifference.
default
Member
Defensive indifference?! How about we must misplayed it?! 
default
Member
My first instinct was to say E9, but I tend to agree with Len.
default
Member
Ok I've read everything and will weigh in.. I'm with Wookie on this one, and would probably go ahead and record this as Sac fly( Ill explain in moment)
I do see another viable option in scoring this... If you go back and say that RF made an off line throw which utltimately resutled in the eventual extra base then some could argue that it was error on throw for if it was online, no one woud have gone anywhere...; and no one else made an error. ( It does not matter how a runner gets the extra base if no physical error was made ie pickel) You cannot assume an out in a pickle and you cannot assume a runner not advancing in a pickle. That would be like awarding an error to the pitcher or cather for every successful steal. So unless you wish to give an error to the RF for the offline throw, resulting in pickle and thus base advancement then I see no error here.
Sac fly.. this is a continuous play and unless you award an error ( which I feel does not apply) then runner had to advance somehow on this play? By her fine running skills she advanced after an out was recorded by fly ball, which fits defintion of sac. Again you have to put something in book as to how runner advances, FC does not apply here as it was not a FC to decide where the out was. benefit is given to runners/ batters in sac situations and this is just one of those type situations..
Defense coached team may be looking for an an error because they feel they should have had one, or atleast no one advancing, but what has been described there seems to be no place for an error. It completely fits defination of sac fly, just an odd way to get there. Break it down and it is the skill ( or luck) of the crafty runner that works hard and advances after a fly ball out, with no errors.
Just the way I see it... right now I cannot see another way to put it in the book correctly, by definition of scoring rules.. may not be how you like it, but it is correct.. Speaking of correct, I also think an error on RF could be correct?? because errors are many times judgement calls and if the scorer judges the offline throw an error ultimatley resulting in a base advanced, then it too would be correct.. I just do not see it that way becaseu other defensive actions ( not errors) happened after the throw, but it could be correct, by rule, if scorer saw it that way..
I do see another viable option in scoring this... If you go back and say that RF made an off line throw which utltimately resutled in the eventual extra base then some could argue that it was error on throw for if it was online, no one woud have gone anywhere...; and no one else made an error. ( It does not matter how a runner gets the extra base if no physical error was made ie pickel) You cannot assume an out in a pickle and you cannot assume a runner not advancing in a pickle. That would be like awarding an error to the pitcher or cather for every successful steal. So unless you wish to give an error to the RF for the offline throw, resulting in pickle and thus base advancement then I see no error here.
Sac fly.. this is a continuous play and unless you award an error ( which I feel does not apply) then runner had to advance somehow on this play? By her fine running skills she advanced after an out was recorded by fly ball, which fits defintion of sac. Again you have to put something in book as to how runner advances, FC does not apply here as it was not a FC to decide where the out was. benefit is given to runners/ batters in sac situations and this is just one of those type situations..
Defense coached team may be looking for an an error because they feel they should have had one, or atleast no one advancing, but what has been described there seems to be no place for an error. It completely fits defination of sac fly, just an odd way to get there. Break it down and it is the skill ( or luck) of the crafty runner that works hard and advances after a fly ball out, with no errors.
Just the way I see it... right now I cannot see another way to put it in the book correctly, by definition of scoring rules.. may not be how you like it, but it is correct.. Speaking of correct, I also think an error on RF could be correct?? because errors are many times judgement calls and if the scorer judges the offline throw an error ultimatley resulting in a base advanced, then it too would be correct.. I just do not see it that way becaseu other defensive actions ( not errors) happened after the throw, but it could be correct, by rule, if scorer saw it that way..
default
Member
You cannot score it a sac fly, because the Runner did not score. If the Girl advanced because the defense failed to cover the bag, you cannot award an error either. I'm sticking with Defensive Indifference.
default
Member
I certainly agree with Wookie and others that it's definitely not an error on the right fielder. But I'm not so sure we can't assume an out in a rundown when the rundown involves only one runner. And when I say assume an out, I mean for scoring purposes, not in the sense that if my team has someone in a rundown, I darned well assume we are going to get an out. We can't assume double plays for scoring purposes, but I would think we can assume an out when a runner is right in the middle of a rundown.
If we can't assume that out and the runner advanced to third on something other than a wild throw or dropped throw, then I guess no error. But if we can assume an out, I think it has to be an error on the fielder making the throw, the one who dropped the throw, or the one who failed to cover third base and should have been there.
If we can't assume that out and the runner advanced to third on something other than a wild throw or dropped throw, then I guess no error. But if we can assume an out, I think it has to be an error on the fielder making the throw, the one who dropped the throw, or the one who failed to cover third base and should have been there.
default
Member
Joe, so under that premise, when the 3B ran her back towards 2B, threw the ball to the SS, and the runner turned around and ran by her and neither RF nor P was backing up 3B, you would give one of them an error? That doesn't seem right just because they didn't get there, just like we don't give an outfielder an error if they don't get to fly ball that they should. Not blaming the girls because we hadn't gone over it ... how about a "coach's error" or "team error"
Lol OK ... this debate has been going on long enough ... let me try to find a professional scorer because run downs do happen at all levels and sometimes the runner gets to the next base.
Lol OK ... this debate has been going on long enough ... let me try to find a professional scorer because run downs do happen at all levels and sometimes the runner gets to the next base.
default
Member
For what it's worth ... here's what wikipedia says about baseball scoring of a rundown ... "if the defense allows the runner to advance to the next base in order (e.g., second base to third base), then the defense is charged with an error[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]."
Aside from the "citation needed" issue, it doesn't say who to charge the error too. But if is an error, it only makes sense to me that you would have to charge 3B because she threw the ball (thereby allowing the runner to reverse direction) when no one was covering the lead base ahead of the runner (3B in this case).
I'm sticking with that until someone proves differently!
Aside from the "citation needed" issue, it doesn't say who to charge the error too. But if is an error, it only makes sense to me that you would have to charge 3B because she threw the ball (thereby allowing the runner to reverse direction) when no one was covering the lead base ahead of the runner (3B in this case).
I'm sticking with that until someone proves differently!
default
Member
Well I must admit my mistake earlier... There can be no sac fly, as no one scored, so by definate rule, this will not be a Sac Fly. Ok now lets here from that pro about pickles and how to score them.
Similar threads
- Go_2_Go_2
- Coaching Softball Discussions