Think I Got Burned On This One

IMO - You got hosed!

What would they have called if the throw was perfect and the run did not score? Seems they rewarded the catcher for not knowing the count and hosed you because your player didn't know the count.

Any umps out there who actually know this rule?

PG, I'm with you there. The problem is I don't have an actual rule in my head that I could refer to.

The umpire told me that the batter should have known the count. I argued so should have the catcher. Then he said, "but if you were the catcher and the batter took off, wouldn't you have thrown to first?"

I didn't think that was the point but again, I didn't have anything legal to argue.

The umpires said they got together and made a judgement call. So they don't have a rule either. And to me, judgement calls are hard to argue other than simply telling them they are wrong. And they surely won't change their mind if I tell them they are wrong!

We've all seen cases where with first base occupied a hitter runs to 1B after a ball gets away from the catcher on strike three. Usually they figure it out before reaching 1B.

I don't know the actual rule, but if the catcher throws it away at 1B it's his fault not the runners.

Being a big believer in common sense and not actually knowing the exact rule. If I were the umpire I would have yelled, No No Full Count! Telling both the hitter and catcher to stop. If that didn't get done, I'd call the play dead. Hitter back to the plate runner back to the base. Of course, someone who really knew the rule might protest that call.

There is a good reason I've never wanted to be an umpire.

Where is piaa ump when we need him?

I think the umps bailed out the catcher.

The umps did bail out the catcher on this call.

The defense has an obligation to be aware of the situation at hand. In this case the catcher chose to throw the ball to first base. He doesn't have to throw the ball even if it was the third strike.

The reason there was no rule to argue is that there isn't one. All the catcher had to do is stand there with the ball and wait until the umpire called the batter back to the plate. He chose to throw the ball and threw it away; shame on him.

Pilsner nailed the answer...and Im going to echo AND muddy the water....

There is no rule here....however there are 2 camps.... like Pilsner has stated, those of us who call HS varsity and higher baseball, the defense and the offense has an obligation to be aware of the situation at hand. In this case the catcher chose to throw the ball to first base.....so score the run and bring back the batter with 2 strikes...

There is another camp on this, and since this was a 13-U game they would say that the best way to handle this is exactly how PG stated it and that is to yell, No No Full Count! Telling both the hitter and catcher to stop. If that didn't get done, they would call the play dead. Hitter back to the plate runner back to the base.

Some umpires call that "preventitive umpiring" ....injecting themselves into the game, negating any effect on both teams of the miss applied count......In youth ball...in the fall....as a training tool.....its worth considering....(I am neither endorsing this or criticizing this)....

However, the old SAL league umpire that trained me called preventitive umpiring "meddling in the game".........

Hope this helps, but for the life of me, I cant see how it can.....

But for what it is worth. no way I am calling the batter out.....

So getting back to the original question...

Biggerpapi,

It definitely appears you did get hosed!

This is according to all explanations given here. If anyone deserved blame, it was first the catcher and then the umpire!

It is kind of funny (not to you) that a hitter was called out while he had a full count. Don't think I've ever seen that!

I'm going to try to muddy the water a little more. There actually is a rule under NFHS.
NFHS 3-2-3: " No offensive team personnel, other than the base coach, shall be near a base for which a runner is trying so that the fielder may be confused; nor be on or near the baseline in such a way as to draw a throw ; nor shall the base coach or any members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner."

In this situation, the batter is not a runner and is not entitled to be on the baseline. By literal reading of the rule and its penalty, the batter is out.

Does this rule really apply to the batter? I don't see why not-- except it doesn't happen very often with actual high school players, and it is contrary to OBR. So in practice, perhaps it doesn't apply to the batter.

By the way, I certainly don't know NFHS rules well enough to know about 3-2-3, I do however realize that NFHS has concepts such as verbal interference and obstruction, while OBR does not, so I looked in Carl Childress' Baseball Rule Differences under the general category of interference, and up popped--
Interference by: Offense: Draws Throw

This is a lot like going out and buying something, then looking it up in some other store's ad to see that it's now on sale.

I don't really feel any better knowing I was probably right. And to be perfectly honest, we gave up 5 unearned runs in the third and didn't deserve to win that game anyway.

As I look back, when the umpire makes a "judgement" call, he isn't going to change it. Any extra arguing would only serve to get me tossed. But I wish I had asked for the umpire to quote the rule. Then, if there's no rule, then the umpire has to reverse his call.

Now, 3 Fingers rule above sounds like it could be interpreted this way. If the umpire had come up with that rule, I couldn't have disputed it too much.

Hey, we play in the fall, not to go 12-0 but to get 40 more ABs and more reps in the field...and we did that. Only 76 days until we begin indoor practice for 2007!!!

Regarding the rule!

If the bases are loaded and the first pitch to the hitter is wide making the count 1-0... But for some reason the hitter takes off running to first base.

The catcher seeing this throws the ball into the right field corner.

According to the rule stated, I guess the hitter is called out for drawing the throw. I guess a smart catcher would throw the ball into the right field corner. Because if he doesn't there is no rule that penalizes the hitter.

That's good to know, because (not knowing this) I would have lost all faith in my catcher.

This once again pertains to common sense. Common sense tells me the runner was not doing this for the purpose of drawing the throw.

This is an interesting topic. It goes to show there are plays that can pop up that are hard to call because they just hardly ever happen.

I do U18 and below and have never called this nor killed it.
I announce the count or call the batter out(KS w/1B occupied), but feel that's as much as I can do as an umpire.

But, you know, I've never even considered a batter really trying to do it..

As soon as I read the desciption of "a batter swinging at the first pitch and taking off",
Made me almost ring him up,,but I still don't think I could..how's that for not having an exact rule I could quote, still boils down to judgement.

My answer to: "but if you were the catcher and the batter took off, wouldn't you have thrown to first?"

NO! And there are at least 8 good reasons why not. At least 5 infielders should have known, an umpire or two, and a coach or two. Why not the catcher too?

This is a reminder I gave my catchers a lot, "dropped 3rd strike,ya don't have to throw",or "two outs dropped 3rd strike ya gotta throw", so if one of my teams did this, I wouldn't attempt to get the interference call, we knew better. And we did it, and I didn't ever get it, nor ask for it...

So, this is one of those IMO that just doesn't fit the rule as described (NFHS 3-2-3)nor
OBR 7.09
(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate;
Rule 7.09(e) Comment: If the batter or a runner continues to advance after he has been put out, he shall not by that act alone be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

BR that's out on an INF, if it's dropped say, by F4. F4 panics and try's to throw the still running BR out at 1B, not interference.

R2 bases loaded 0 outs, GB to F5, he steps on 3rd. Forcing R2, then throws past F3. As F9 picks up the ball and throws a strike to F2 to retire the sliding R2, at home, interfernce on R2. That guy (R2) clearly shouldn't have been there. I could easily tell he was drawing a throw to advance the runners..

Seems verbatim the "retired runner" has some definite liberty's not offered the "NOT YET OUT" batter, so I would say, yes interference could be called by the book. But boy not so sure it could be done obviously enough for me to call it. IMO, you got hosed.

You sure he wasn't just laying his bat down and running up to check with 1B coach on the signs?

I'm surprised no one has called for a "out of the box strike." When the batter took off for first, he should have been out for delaying the game. Yes, NFHS has loosened the called strike but this is a case listed in the casebook to call the strike. If that is done then he is out and the run doesn't count.

Michael,

Original post indicates that the batter did swing at the pitch. (second strike) He can leave the box if he swings and misses but it's true; the ump still could call him out (third strike) for delay.
I don't think I'd want to step in any of that.