FC or infield hit?

I agree that it would be a fielders choice as it certainly sounds as if the batter would have been out easily if the shortstop had elected to throw to first in the first place.

The following rules are taken from OBR rather than NFHS.

As you can see, you were correct. an error can’t be charged. However, as you can see by the definition of a FC, the fielder has to make an effort to put out another runner. Looking at another runner isn’t attempting to put him out. Score it a single.

Rule 10.12(a)(1) Comment: Slow handling of the ball that does not involve mechanical misplay shall not be construed as an error. For example, the official scorer shall not charge a fielder with an error if such fielder fields a ground ball cleanly but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter.

FIELDER’S CHOICE is the act of a fielder who handles a fair grounder and,
instead of throwing to first base to put out the batter-runner, throws to another base in an
attempt to put out a preceding runner. The term is also used by scorers (a) to account for the advance of the batter-runner who takes one or more extra bases when the fielder who
handles his safe hit attempts to put out a preceding runner; (b) to account for the advance of a runner (other than by stolen base or error) while a fielder is attempting to put out another runner; and (c) to account for the advance of a runner made solely because of the defensive team’s indifference (undefended steal).

Following up on the 10.12(a)(1) comment:

Not necessarily in reference to the posted scenario here, but it's always struck me that when it says "but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter" ... that phrase could be interpreted two ways.
A. he doesn't make a throw
B. he makes a throw but it's not in time

So on a routine ground ball, if the fielder just holds on to the ball without even making a throw (brain cramp), does this rule protect him from being given an error?

Interested in other scorekeepers' take on this.

quote:

that phrase could be interpreted two ways.
A. he doesn't make a throw
B. he makes a throw but it's not in time

I don't see this as 'two ways'. There is really no difference between a late throw and no throw at all. Once the runner has touched the base, throwing the ball is a moot.

quote:

So on a routine ground ball, if the fielder just holds on to the ball without even making a throw (brain cramp), does this rule protect him from being given an error?

Do you mean 'if the fielder bobbles the ball and then just holds it'. That's an error....If he fields the ball cleanly but doesn't make a throw, then no error...However, if he makes the throw it's still not an error if the runner beats the throw, so holding the ball vs throwing late is the same....he only protects himself from making a bad throw that results in the runner taking an additional base (i.e. hit and an error).

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
Following up on the 10.12(a)(1) comment:

Not necessarily in reference to the posted scenario here, but it's always struck me that when it says "but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter" ... that phrase could be interpreted two ways.
A. he doesn't make a throw
B. he makes a throw but it's not in time

So on a routine ground ball, if the fielder just holds on to the ball without even making a throw (brain cramp), does this rule protect him from being given an error?

Interested in other scorekeepers' take on this.

You’re correct. It could be interpreted differently by different people, but I ask this. How many times have you ever seen a fielder field a ball in plenty of time to make a play on the batter-runner, but simply brain cramp and do nothing? I know I’ve never seen it, and I’ve been watching baseball regularly since 1954.

I’d say that most often when a fielder doesn’t make a throw after cleanly fielding a ball, its because there’s no reason to make it. FI, the play would be very close and a bad throw would be a disaster, or the runner was obviously going to beat the throw. Those instances are covered by 10.05(a)(2), so there shouldn’t be an error scored.

quote:

Looking at another runner isn’t attempting to put him out. Score it a single.

FIELDER’S CHOICE is the act of a fielder who handles a fair grounder and,
instead of throwing to first base to put out the batter-runner, throws to another base in an
attempt to put out a preceding runner.[/i]

I thought this would be an easy one! Of course you're correct that it doesn't fit the literal definition of FC that your cited, but as someone else said, the batter-runner would have EASILY been thrown out at 1st if there was no runner on 3rd. When there's a runner on 1st and the batter hits a groundball deep in the hole at short that the SS has no chance of throwing the batter-runner out at 1st on, but is able to make the short throw to 2nd and retire the lead runner, the batter is not PENALIZED with an FC just because there happened to be a runner on base - he gets credited with a hit according to rule 10.05(a)(6). So why should a batter be CREDITED with a hit just because there happened to be a runner on base?

Even though the rules don't provide for an error to be charged in this case, I think they should: the SS didn't make a throw ANYWHERE on a ball hit right at him that he fielded cleanly. Why should a pitcher's ERA potentially suffer because of the SS's inability to even ATTEMPT to get an out somewhere? It has to be SOMEONE'S fault that an out wasn't made, and I say it's the SS in this case - even if it wasn't a physical error.

quote:

When there's a runner on 1st and the batter hits a groundball deep in the hole at short that the SS has no chance of throwing the batter-runner out at 1st on, but is able to make the short throw to 2nd and retire the lead runner, the batter is not PENALIZED with an FC just because there happened to be a runner on base - he gets credited with a hit according to rule 10.05(a)(6). So why should a batter be CREDITED with a hit just because there happened to be a runner on base?

I think you have misread 10.05(a)(6). If the lead runner is retired, then it is not a hit.

(6) a fielder unsuccessfully attempts to put out a preceding runner and, in the
official scorer’s judgment, the batter-runner would not have been put out at
first base by ordinary effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Hawk19:
I think you have misread 10.05(a)(6). If the lead runner is retired, then it is not a hit.

(6) a fielder unsuccessfully attempts to put out a preceding runner and, in the
official scorer’s judgment, the batter-runner would not have been put out at
first base by ordinary effort.

Yes - my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

The comment following 10.05(a) puzzles me a bit in this situation:

"In applying Rule 10.05(a), the official scorer shall always give the batter the benefit of the doubt. A safe course for the official scorer to follow is to score a hit when exceptionally good fielding of a ball fails to result in a putout."

Does "putout" refer to the batter-runner, or ANY runner? In other words, in the situation I described where a ball is hit deep in the hole at short with a runner on 1st and the ONLY play is a force at 2nd, even exceptionally good fielding could not get the batter-runner out at 1st. So is this an infield hit, or is it always a FC for the batter any time another runner is forced out, regardless of whether the batter-runner could have been thrown out at 1st?

Great comments. Thanks to all for the insight into this!

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
Even though the rules don't provide for an error to be charged in this case, I think they should: the SS didn't make a throw ANYWHERE on a ball hit right at him that he fielded cleanly. Why should a pitcher's ERA potentially suffer because of the SS's inability to even ATTEMPT to get an out somewhere? It has to be SOMEONE'S fault that an out wasn't made, and I say it's the SS in this case - even if it wasn't a physical error.

I know it seems whacky and unfair, but its not as though the folks who wrote the rules didn’t consider things like it. See below.

Rule 10.12(a)(1) Comment: … The official scorer shall not score mental mistakes or misjudgments as errors unless a specific rule prescribes otherwise. …

Rule 10.12(a)(7) Comment: The official scorer shall apply this rule even when it appears to be an injustice to a fielder whose throw was accurate. For example, the official scorer shall charge an error to an outfielder whose accurate throw to second base hits the base and caroms back into the outfield, thereby permitting a runner or runners to advance, because every base advanced by a runner must be accounted for.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
…The comment following 10.05(a) puzzles me a bit in this situation:

"In applying Rule 10.05(a), the official scorer shall always give the batter the benefit of the doubt. A safe course for the official scorer to follow is to score a hit when exceptionally good fielding of a ball fails to result in a putout."

Does "putout" refer to the batter-runner, or ANY runner? In other words, in the situation I described where a ball is hit deep in the hole at short with a runner on 1st and the ONLY play is a force at 2nd, even exceptionally good fielding could not get the batter-runner out at 1st. So is this an infield hit, or is it always a FC for the batter any time another runner is forced out, regardless of whether the batter-runner could have been thrown out at 1st?

Great comments. Thanks to all for the insight into this!

Any runner.

The standard example that seems like the ultimate injustice is this.

State Championship. Bases loaded, 2 outs, bottom of the last inning with the team batting down by a run. Batter hits a rope to left center, and with the runners moving on contact, there’s no doubt the runner on 2nd will score and the game will be over. But the runner on 1st just jogs toward 2nd and is watching the runners ahead of him, and the CF throws to 2nd for the force.

OOPS! No hit, no runs, game over.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
Runners on 1st & 3rd, 1 out. Infield in to cut off run. Batter hits ball sharply to SS who fields it cleanly. When he checks the runner on 3rd, he sees that he has gotten too far off and he turns like he's going to throw to third. He hesitates as runner on 3rd starts back to the bag, looks at batter going to 1st, looks at runner on 3rd again, but never throws the ball anywhere (runner on 3rd hustles and dives back to 3rd safely). Batter is safe at 1st.

FC or infield single? Can't be an error because there was no mis-play of the ball. I say FC because SS did not make a play on the batter because of runner on 3rd (even though he didn't throw to 3rd).

Been reading all the replies and sometimes common sense just has to rule. Yes the rules are the guidelines we follow, they are not perfect and not every situation is outlined.

This is a case of indecision by the shortstop. He wanted to cut the run down at home, but the runner changed his mind, then he thinks "I better get the run at first, oh, but then the runner might break for home! What do I do? I'll just check that runner back to third." I am a fielder and I made a choice what I did on this play. Then there is the slow handling rule, this was not what was described by the first post, the infield was in to cut the run off at home. I am definitely more in favor of giving an error to short in this situation than a hit to the batter, but of course the rules don't allow for that.

In my opinion this is a fielder's choice even though a throw was not made. Should the batter be awarded a hit because the runner at third kept the shortstop's attention long enough to delay the throw, I don't think so.

Now a good lawyer could take this to court and use the rules and argue that a throw was not made so therefore it's a hit, but let's get real.

OK Heat,

I won’t dispute that there is a conundrum involved, but that’s the way things go. There are SKs who’d score it the way you feel is correct, and there are SKs who’d score it differently. A good SK will try to make the best decision possible based on the rules and his experience, not by his personal feelings. I’d score it how I saw it, combined with the rules as they exist and how I interpret them based on my experience and the experience of others over the years, and that’s all I’d worry about.