Sending out the BretMan signal -- need a ruling

[default]

Here is the situation at a Junior High I witnessed this weekend: Runner on third, one out. The batter swings and misses on a low pitch. Thinking it was strike three and seeing the catcher dropped the ball, she breaks for first. The catcher, who lost track of the count, fires the ball wildly down the first base line. The runner from third scores and the batter easily reaches first. The manager of the team in the field calls time and presents his case successfully to the umpire who in turn nullifies the run, returns that runner to third, and calls the batter out! Did he make the correct call and why? How in the world would you score that in the book?

 

[default]

The runs scores. Batter returns to complete her at bat with the correct count. As far as scoring it, I'm not 100% sure. I would probably give the catcher an error for not knowing the count and throwing the ball to first, which allowed the run to score.

 

[default]

What was the count when all of this took place? I assume less than two strikes although the post didn't specifically say so. Also, did the umpire give any rationale for his ruling? Did he perhaps say that the act of running to first was an intentional attempt to draw a throw with the batter knowing that there were less than two strikes?

 

[default]

I"ll go with what Lady knights said.

The defense is responsible for knowing the count, number of outs, game situation, etc. If they make a throw that isn't necessay, it's on them.

Live ball, play on, get what you get. The run counts, return the batter to the plate to continue her at-bat.

Umpires can be proactive in heading off things like this if they give the count on a regular basis. It tends to keep everybody on the same page. The only other thing they might do here is, when the batter takes off on less than three strikes, loudly announce, "That's only strike two!".

Middle school games often have less experienced umpires and that sounds like the case here. If the umpire really thought that there was a rule violation, he should have called it without having a coach lobby for the call. I think that maybe an inexperienced umpire got talked into one here!

 

[default]

Is there a penalty the umpire can apply if he is somehow able to determine that the runner knew there were not two strikes and was intentionally trying to draw a throw and get the catcher to commit an error?

 

[default]

This was my first thought.

Is there a penalty the umpire can apply if he is somehow able to determine that the runner knew there were not two strikes and was intentionally trying to draw a throw and get the catcher to commit an error?

 

[default]

The runs scores. Batter returns to complete her at bat with the correct count. As far as scoring it, I'm not 100% sure. I would probably give the catcher an error for not knowing the count and throwing the ball to first, which allowed the run to score.

No error. Mental mistakes are not errors (according to the rules, not according to TR_Out). LOL.

 

[default]

The runs scores. Batter returns to complete her at bat with the correct count. As far as scoring it, I'm not 100% sure. I would probably give the catcher an error for not knowing the count and throwing the ball to first, which allowed the run to score.

No error. Mental mistakes are not errors (according to the rules, not according to TR_Out). LOL.

Actually, the scoring rules would allow an error to be charged in this case. First off, it was a wild throw to 1B and if the wildness allowed the runner to score, it's an error. Secondly, scoring rules allow errors to be charged on unnecessary throws.

ATEC Errors: d - An error is charged when an unnecessary throw allows a runner to advance.

NCAA - Error: 14.21.8 An error is charged when an unnecessary throw allows a runner to advance.

NCAA - No error is charged: 14.22.2 When there is a mental mistake. Throwing to the wrong base is considered a mental mistake.

 

[default]

Actually, the scoring rules would allow an error to be charged in this case. First off, it was a wild throw to 1B and if the wildness allowed the runner to score, it's an error. Secondly, scoring rules allow errors to be charged on unnecessary throws.

ATEC Errors: d - An error is charged when an unnecessary throw allows a runner to advance.

NCAA - Error: 14.21.8 An error is charged when an unnecessary throw allows a runner to advance.

NCAA - No error is charged: 14.22.2 When there is a mental mistake. Throwing to the wrong base is considered a mental mistake.

So rule it as you want..because a throw to the wrong base in certain situations can be considered an unnecessary throw that allows a runner to advance...

 

[default]

My thoughts & as several are mentioning - want to hear Bretman's take.........If Batter is suppose to stay in the box & takes off for first, causing the catcher to throw - Is the Ump able to call time/dead ball & not stop the play from happening? I would feel like a team taking running down the line when batter should be in the box would be a very good reason for an Ump to take charge - or can he call a batter out for leaving the batter's area???

 

[default]

In high school softball, there's no rule that batters must stay in the batter's box between pitches. There isn't any penalty if they leave the box.

In rule sets that do say the batter has to stay in the box between pitches, like ASA, one of the exceptions where that rule doesn't apply is when the batter swings at a pitch. So there wouldn't be any rules violated there either.

 

[default]

Bretman - thanks for the response. My umpiring experience (which is very limited compared to you) told me that blue didn't get it right. I have seen the "Wisconsin" play where the batter "sells" a walk when there is actually only 3 balls in the count to allow other runners to move up (example runners on first and second going down the base paths), but this play was a new one on me.

 

[default]

This reminds me of a play I had in the midst of a bad tournament season.
A girls who almost never got on (An 8u playing at 10u) was on third with a girl at second the girl at the plate walks, my 8u thinking she was forced starts walking down the line. I was about to call her back when I noticed the pitcher and catcher were standing in front of the plate discussing pitches not paying any attention to her. -

We had nothing to lose so I let her go.

Pretty as you please she jump on to the plate and started to walk to the dugout - I called her over and told her she had just stolen home. She got the biggest smile on her face.

After the game I used this a an example of "Always keeping your head in the game".

 

[default]

Bretman - in a different situation where it wasn't an "innocent batter forgetting the count", and running to first intentionally, couldn't an umpire, in his/her judgement, rule interference? I thought I recall a discussion like this on third strike, ball not caught, less than two outs, first base occupied - and runner runs to first confusing the defense - that umpire could rule interference?

 

[default]

I hope not. I did have an umpire tell me once that if another of my 8U players ran with less than two outs and first occupied on a DTS that she would eject me for "making a mockery (sp) of the game". I grinned and said, "Well, then I hope the only ones left are the ones that didn't pay attention at practice when we covered the "two strikes" situation.

 

[default]

We would hope that at the younger ages this wouldn't apply, although some may say that at the older ages, the offensive player should know the situation and know when they are out (i.e., when they can and can't run to first on a ball not caught on a third strike) and running to first may be an attempt to "confuses a defensive player", although I'd say the catcher should know the situation too and shouldn't be confused!!

What if a batter is out on a fielders choice at second, but continutes to run as though they are not out, confusing the defense?

 

[default]

I did have an umpire tell me once that if another of my 8U players ran with less than two outs and first occupied on a DTS that she would eject me for "making a mockery (sp) of the game".

Whenever an umpire tells you that he's going to invoke some mysterious "mockery of the game" rule, he's just making stuff up.

There isn't any universal, all-encompasing "mockery rule" that an umpire can pull out to cover any situation he just doesn't happen to like, or anything possible situation that seems unusual or out of the norm.

Whatever the player is doing is either legal or illegal. There is either a rule that covers it or there isn't. And, in this case, there is a rule and here is what it says (paraphrasing a bit, to cover multiple rule sets):

A runner is out when...After being declared out or after scoring, a runner interferes with a
defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. A runner
continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference.
NOTE: This does not apply to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike
rule.

The rule specifically makes an exception for a retired batter taking off to first base. Running to first, when you're not allowed to, is not in and of itself illegal or a form of interference. It can becopme interference, if the retired batter in some way actually interferes with anothr play on a viable runner (for example, if there's a runner on first, the catcher tries to pick her off, but the throw hits the retired batter).

Any umpire who threatens to eject or penalize a retired batter for running to first base when she not entitled to, under some imaginary "mockery of the game" rule, is making a mockery of the game!

 

[default]

What if a batter is out on a fielders choice at second, but continutes to run as though they are not out, confusing the defense?

It's covered in the same rule I posted above. A retired runner who continues to run the bases, as if she wasn't put out, may result in an interference call. It's not automatic. The retired player must actually interfere with another play on a viable runner for it to be interference.

This is a little bit different than when a retired batter takes off for first base, because the batter is specifically covered by the exemption involving third strike plays. If a retired runner continues to run and draws a throw, it might be interference if it allows the offense to benefit by having other runners take extra bases they would not have otherwise gained.