How to score

I would score it a hit. I don't see it as a FC because no play was made on another runner, I don't see an E because other than mental, or just slowness in recording the out, there wasn't a recordable error.

Score it a hit !!!!

"Hitter would have been out at first if pitcher had made throw to first."

It cannot be a hit.

Both OBR & Fed - FC.

Texan, I used to think the same way.

However, OBR says:
10.06
A base hit shall not be scored in the following cases:
...
(d) When a fielder fails in an attempt to put out a preceding runner, and in the scorer’s judgment the batter-runner could have been put out at first base.
NOTE: This shall not apply if the fielder merely looks toward or feints toward another base before attempting to make the putout at first base;
...

This double negative in rule 10.06 (d) makes me believe that the rules require that it be scored as a hit.

But in this case, there was no putout attempt at all at first. So that note doesn't apply.

FC.

Texan - if it is a FC, does the batter also get credit for a Sac? No runner advanced, so I think not. But I also don't think the batter should be penalized with an at bat since he did his job and got a good bunt down.

In this particular case, the pitcher fielded the bunt, looked at the runner from third and cocked his arm, but did not make any other attempt to get the runner from third. When he then checked the batter, he did not make attempt at first because the batter was only a step away. If the pitcher had thrown to home in an attempt to get the runner from third and the runner from third had safely retreated to third - then how is that scored? I know it is a FC, but does the hitter get credited with a Sac also?

I don't like it either, but it is a FC.

You're right, the runner failing to advance makes it impossible to score it as a SAC.

What we think it should be doesn't change what the rules say it has to be.

In your scenario, it is still a FC.

You can't credit the batter for both a FC and a SAC. It must be one or the other.

As in a DP one cannot assume it would have happened


In this case one cannot assume the fielder would have thrown the batter out at first


IT IS A HIT !!!!!

TR, you really take the cake!

GO READ THE RULE BOOK! You are as wrong as the day is long.

By your logic, there would never ever be a FC, because you could never assume the batter-runner would been thrown out at first had a play not been made on the other runner. That is the entire premise of the FC. In the SK's judgement, he assumes the batter runner would have been put out had the play been made on him.

Read the original post:
"Hitter would have been out at first if pitcher had made throw to first."

What you think or want, or what makes sense to you, is irrelevant. Read the rules and interps.

TEXAN


You guys read too much---that is your problem---the fielder picks up the ball makes no play but does not throw it away===there is no error--YOU CANNOT ASSUME HE WOULD HAVE THROWN HIM OUT


The fielder did not make the throw nor can you say if he did he would thrown him out---

Rules and interps---what does that mean ?

OH That is right I am in CT and I Know nothing --LOL

tr, don't bother posting on this thread again until you go read the rules and interps. Anyone reading even just the rule book will see how ignorant your statements truly are.

It is one thing to lack knowledge, it is another thing to refuse to seek knowledge when one's lack of knowledge becomes apparent. Go read. Then come back & apologize for being wrong. In the meantime, quit misleading people.

TEXAN


You know what---you have all the answers---I will allow you that

No need to try and lecture when you are wrong

You read too much--and you say interps---I interp--you are off base and totally wrong, at least in our region--perhaps you have a larger expanse of the rules

Sorry TEXAN---I stick by my guns

Are you going to send me PM's and degrading emails as like your your cohort cccds

You don't read at all TR.

And thank you for the compliment that I read too much.

The egotistical ignorant are always afraid to read. Because they know they will be proven wrong if they do read.

How about an example from OBR. Since you refuse to read and educate yourself, I will read it for you. Slowly, even.

"10.06
(d) When a fielder fails in an attempt to put out a preceding runner runner, and in the scorer's judgement the batter-runner could have been put out at first base." *bold added for emphasis*

It does NOT say there has to be a throw.

Stick by your guns until the cows come home. You will remain wrong.

Since no attempt was made at the runner on third, how can it be a FC.

it says "When a fielder fails in an attempt..."

If he had thrown and not gotten the guy on third out, then yes it's a FC.

If a ball is hit to an infielder and he doesn't throw it soon enough to first, is it and error? I usually score it a hit, a mental error yes, but not physical. I see this as the same thing, he just didn't follow through with the throw to first.

You could always go with 10.5
"NOTE: In applying the above rules, always give the batter the benefit of the doubt. A safe course to follow is to score a hit when exceptionally good fielding of a ball fails to result in a putout."

It isn't the same thing, O'Brady.

Being slow to first doesn't make an error. The rules address that.

In this case, the pitcher starts to go to third (or home) in an attempt to put out R3. R3 scampers back. What would have happened had the pitcher ignored R3 and just gone to first?

According to the person who saw the play:
"Hitter would have been out at first if pitcher had made throw to first."

That is the key. That is the very definition of a FC. The batter-runner would have been put out at first - in the scorer's judgement - had the attempt been made on him.

It can't go down as a SAC, even though that was the batter's intent, because R3 failed to advance.

I don't like the way the rule applies here. But until the rules are changed, we're stuck with it.

So any fielder who fields a ball, checks he lead runner, then can't get the guy at first because of that delay, is scored a FC? (I guess it comes down to: did checking the runner the reason he didn't throw to first or did he just not do it)

I see it that the kid just took to much time checking the runner to make the play at first so didn't throw. After all, he had to hurry to a bunted ball, pick it up, check the runner, and by that time most batters could beat out that throw. Now if he had picked up the ball and without hesitation thrown to first, then maybe he had the guy. Bottom line, I had to be there to know for certain how I'd score it. But it still sounds like a hit to me.

OB, I understand where you are coming from. But that's not the way I read what the poster wrote.

What I strongly disagree with TR on is his false statement "YOU CANNOT ASSUME HE WOULD HAVE THROWN HIM OUT". That belies the entire premise of the FC. On any FC, the assumption the scorer makes is that the batter-runner would have been out had a play been made on the batter-runner.

It is a FC.

A FC means the fielder made a decision to throw to one base or another---in this case it did not happen


I rest my case---sorry


By the way TEXAN that is not a false statement---you cannot assume an out

TR you can say it all day long and into the night. You can whisper it, speak it or yell it. You are wrong.

Not only can you not read the rules, you don't even understand the concept of a FC. Any FC ASSUMES that the batter-runner would have been put out had the play been made on batter-runner rather than on another baserunner. It is the SCORER'S JUDGMENT.

I will not try to correct your mistakes any more on this thread. Go ahead & have the last word.

It is a fielder's choice, because the fielder had a choice and chose to hold the ball. Thus, it is fielder's choice. That was a joke, what isn't is it really is a fielder's choice. If he wasn't going to be safe, it is not a hit. This is an example of a FC where there is no throw.

I think the point of argument is;

"When he then checked the batter, he did not make attempt at first because the batter was only a step away"

Which tells me that after checking the runner he didn't have time to make the throw to first. Now, was it because he made a bone head play, or the batter was fast enough to leg it out. You had to be there. If the fielder made clean play and a not to long of a look, to me it would be a hit. If he, the pitcher, made a dumb play, I still se it as a mental error,still have to see it if I'm going to rule it as something other than a hit.

How can I score it a FC if "no attempt is made on another runner. I believe I'd see it as an error before a FC.

Where's Scorekeeper when you need him?

Teaxan,
It seems to me that you have interpreted the phrase "attempt to put out" as either requiring a throw (see the 6th post of this thread) or as not requiring a throw (14th post of this thread). You really can't have it both ways.

If "attempt to put out" means "make a play on", then by definition (See OBR section 2, or NFHS 2.14.1) this situation can't be a fielder's choice. And, just to be clear, it can't be a sacrifice or error, because the preceeding runner didn't advance, and the ball was fielded cleanly with no play.


On the other hand, if "attempt to put out" includes "feinting or looking towards", then rule 10.06 (d) and following note-- which is helpfully quoted in post #5-- applies, and the batter should be credited with a hit.

Either way, the rules require this to be scored as a hit.

The section of OBR you quoted was very specific (attempt to make putout at first base), 3. And this situation doesn't match that scenario.

A FC would not require an attempt to make the putout at first. An FC merely requires that in the scorer's judgment, the batter-runner would have been put out had the play been made on him.

FC.

Texan,

Trying to keep personalities out of this … your point of going by THE RULES regardless of what we may think is admirable. But there are some problems with your argument:

First: OBR definition is as follows: “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.”

Note is specifically says “THROWS” to another base”. That didn’t happen in this scenario.

Then your statement, “Any FC ASSUMES that the batter-runner would have been put out had the play been made on batter-runner rather than on another baserunner. It is the SCORER'S JUDGMENT.”

I’m Just curious … where did that one come from? Is that an actual RULE, or is it something you’ve just always assumed? Seriously.

Not too long ago in the Scorekeeping forum, there was a thread (which has appeared more than once) about this scenario:
- runner on first
- batter his a looping liner to CF that bounces
- fielder charges it and throws to 2nd, forcing the runner.

Check the thread, and you’ll see it has to scored as a FC for the batter – even though obviously the batter-runner would not have been put out. This contradicts your “Any FC ASSUMES …” statement.

The original scenario posed is little bit of a strange situation, but in taking your advice and going strictly by the rulebook, I’m going with scoring it as a HIT all the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
The section of OBR you quoted was very specific (attempt to make putout at first base), 3. And this situation doesn't match that scenario.

The rule I quoted is 10.06(d), and it quite obviously does match the situation. But don't take my word for it; take your own: in the 14th post in this thread you said 10.06(d) applies! But you did omit the accompanying note which vitiates your argument.

Strange behavior...

However, we should acknowledge that the rules of baseball (especially OBR) are frequently unclear, inconsistent, or just plain contrary to actual practice. Happily, for the playing rules (sections 2-8), there are a number of higher authorities-- MLB Umpire Manual, Jim Evans Annotated, Childress' Baseball Rule Differences, Jaksa-Roder, etc.-- which help to clarify things. Frequently a legalistic reading of the playing rules can lead one to a conclusion which is contrary to authoritative opinion. It turns out that careful parsing of sloppily written rules may lead to incorrect conclusions. You can see this played out repeatedly in umpiring forums.

For rule 10, I'm not aware of any authoritative opinion. Probably that's because the outcome of the game isn't affected by the rule; instead one player's batting average is slightly altered.

The situation under discussion is not clearly addressed in rule 10. I've stated my case, which I think is backed by the rules. But authoritative opinion, if it existed, might be different.

I agree with calling it a FC... think of it this way.... instead of just looking the runner back and faking the throw down to first (probably trying to draw R3 into a run down) what if he just picked the ball up and threw it home in order to stop R3 from scoring? Now that would have been a clear cut FC. The fact that the fielder held the ball while lookng the runner back at 3rd should not change anything.

Think of it outside the box for a minute...what if by some chance R3 is the winning run and it's the bottom of the 7th (9th) and there is either 1 out or no outs at all.... The fielder makes a choice to let the runner go to 1st in order to hold that runner at 3rd.

For whatever reason he might have had, it was pretty obvious to me that the fielder made a choice to hold the runner on 3rd...

I hope you don't mind me taking liberties and adding a little "fictional" twist to the orginal poster... it just seemed like a good place to step outside of the box and look at it from a different angle. The original poster did say in a second post giving a little more info that the fielder "cocked his arm"... I was a shortstop and was famous for taking a grounder to my left with a lone runner at second, pulling up to fake a throw to first almost jumping out of my cleats in order to draw that runner into me...then I would smile as he ran into me for an out...tagging him - recording an out and thus moving the runner back to 1st instead of getting out with a runner on 3rd. I even got the same runner twice in the same game with this kind of fake throw...talk about being mad at me (and himself I assume for falling for it twice.)

That cocked arm could well have been used as a fake throw trying to draw that R3 into an out in order to get the lead runner...and would make sense if the boys are older (high school age) and the game is on the line... of course I am assuming here that the fielder was that smart of a player...but then we are all assuming certain things not having actually seen the play develope.

Texan is correct. The fact is, the pitcher gets the ball on a "SAFETY SQUEEZE", obviously the runner at 3rd is going to be down the line a bit (not like a suicide) but he will be down the line. What the pitcher chose to do is look over at the runner at 3rd...right at this point he is keeping the runner from scoring (he did accomplish something). So at that stage the scorekeeper makes the judgement that there was NO ERROR (it's up to the scorekeeper to determine if an ERROR was made). So, since NO ERROR (no bobble, no errant throw, no nothing), the pitcher had a choice to make , 1) keep the runner at 3rd by simply looking that way with body language, 2) Make a throw to 3rd base and try to get the run-down going, 3) Get the out at 1st. He chose to keep the runner at 3rd. Good decision, no run scored ant you live to pitch to another batter.
FIELDER's CHOICE ALL THE WAY with NO HIT, NO SAC, NO ERROR scored. It's simply an FC clear and simple. Don't try to make it too complicated. Don't give a hit where a hit is not due. Always lean toward giving the defense the benefit of the doubt because that's the way it's going to be once they reach high school and beyond! Do them a favor, teach them early.

I'm with you TR! IT IS A HIT! Any scorekeeper worth his salt would give the hitter credit for doing his job and hustling down the line fast enough that the pitcher had no play even after looking at third. If it was a bad bunt the pitcher still would have had plenty of time to look third and still get the out at first.

quote:

Always lean toward giving the defense the benefit of the doubt because that's the way it's going to be once they reach high school and beyond!

Whoooa ... where did that one come from?

OBR specifically says:
10.05 (BASE HITS): "... NOTE: In applying the above rules, always give the batter the benefit of the doubt."

10.09 (SACRIFICES): "... NOTE: In applying the above rule, always give the batter the benefit of the doubt."

It's pretty clear who the authors of the rulebook thought should be given the benefit of the doubt ... and it doesn't sseem to be the defense.

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:

quote:

Always lean toward giving the defense the benefit of the doubt because that's the way it's going to be once they reach high school and beyond!

Whoooa ... where did that one come from?

OBR specifically says:
10.05 (BASE HITS): "... NOTE: In applying the above rules, always give the batter the benefit of the doubt."

10.09 (SACRIFICES): "... NOTE: In applying the above rule, always give the batter the benefit of the doubt."

It's pretty clear who the authors of the rulebook thought should be given the benefit of the doubt ... and it doesn't sseem to be the defense.

Here's why you DON'T give the batter the benefit of the doubt on that particular play and in general. This is regardless of what OBR says. Just ask ANY professional scorekeeper working for MLB (also college) but mainly MLB because I know a ton of them. Went to the course myself. Ok, so now you're ready to learn why you give the deference to the defense. "If an out can and should be made on a batter/runner heading to first and is not, 1) an error was made, 2) a CHOICE was made to attempt to feign, run to a put-out, throw to a put-out at another base, 3) attempt to give the runner a base-hit on purpose (friend, betting partner, fantasy player)."
You see, the baseball world (any sport really), has dramatically changed. Stats are king in baseball and players pay off other players to make teams, get raises, make gambling debts go away, help others by making plays look legitimate, etc. OBR knows this, umpires know this, MLB knows this, players know this. It happens all the time and the scorekeeping community knows this. So please don't be naive in assuming this doesn't go on because it does. I hope you think clearly on this now.

Switch,

Very interesing! I'm impressed that you went to the course yourself. Glad to have a point of view expressed here that has some real experience behind it. Obviously, in my posts I'm simply quoting OBR -- that's all have to go by.

Couple of questions: tell me a little about "the course" -- who offers it, where is it offered, and who typically attends? Can anyone register for it?

Also curious about the source of your quote. Was it from material provided at the course?

Final question -- where the heck is Witchita, IN?

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by RPD:
Switch,

Very interesing! I'm impressed that you went to the course yourself. Glad to have a point of view expressed here that has some real experience behind it. Obviously, in my posts I'm simply quoting OBR -- that's all have to go by.

Couple of questions: tell me a little about "the course" -- who offers it, where is it offered, and who typically attends? Can anyone register for it?

Also curious about the source of your quote. Was it from material provided at the course?

Final question -- where the heck is Witchita, IN?

Thanks!

It's Swingley Development:
Here you go, you'll find this very interesting. Please read the entire article including innings recreation of an actual MLB game. It's real good stuff. Witchita is by Converse indiana but only population 14, yea 14...that's why you probably can't find it. Pretty much a cemetery and a closed gas station.

Swingley Development

It is a fielders choice. Did you also know that at certain times when a runner attempts to steal a base and the catcher doesn't bother to try to throw him out, that too is scored as a fielders choice? It's defensive indifference but it goes down as a fielders choice....it's true. It's in the OBR.

Was there ever a consensus to this debate? I read it a while back and I just came back to it to see if there was a decision. Did it just turn into "score keepers judgement"?

My two cents: FC. We're presuming (and YES, we CAN presume)that the only reason the hitter got on base is because the fielder CHOSE to look at the runner and/or feint toward him.

Ya' know, had it been a little 'tweener, where the Fielder would have had a hard time getting the hitter anyway, I might lean towards giving a hit. But if it was one of those cases where he would have been easily out BUT FOR the feint, you gotta be realistic and give him a FC.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TWO LONG PAGES ON THE STAT SITE

How long has it been since we got TWO pages of

dialogue on this site?


Have we ever been able to get two pages on this

site before?


A lot has been said here about a bunt play. From

what I can tell it was A BEAUTIFUL BUNT PLAY.


This bunter bunted down first base line in an

attempt to sacrifice his team mate home from third

base.


No one has said but was the pitcher right handed?


That would be one tough play to make to home for

most right-handed pitchers.


But apparently the runner [idiot] on third did not

know a sacrifice was on.



Or maybe he did not think he could start running

until the pitcher fielded the ball.



ANYWAY, the pitcher fielded the ball cleanly

and 'feinted' to third.


AGAIN, a tough move for a right handed pitcher to

throw to third.



A long throw for anyone [even a left handed

pitcher] from the first base line to third.


Is anyone covering third?



What is the asigned coverage for the third baseman

on a bunt attempt?



What defense was on when the ball was bunted down

first?

Wheel Play?


Were there any other runners on any other bases

before the bunt attempt?

Obviously there were less than 2 outs.

Right.

Otherwise the pitcher would have just thrown the ball to third.

No one is that stupid.

OK. So we have less than 2 outs and a runner on third.

Obviously not a squeeze bunt because the runner would have started sooner?

That is right.

Not a safety squeeze either because the runner got back to third easily on the Pircher's faint.

Sorry, I meant feint.

Anway, like I was saying earlier.

TWO FULL Pages on a discussion on a stat site.

WIll we ever get three?

TW344

Sorry, I forgot the question.

Oh YES.

Now I remember.

How is it scored?

FC.

No error.

No hit.

No sacrifice.

TW344

I guess we will never make it to three pages.

Come back TR Hit.

We need your onosensical thoughts now more than ever.

Help us get three pages.

PLEASE

TW344