What do you have

True

In my game, false. In my judgement, the batter did not delay the game. The count is 2-2.

It would have to be one serious delay before I'd pick up the sh!tty end of that stick.

Wile not an official Umpire, i would agree that there was absolutley no delay in the game

calling 2 strikes in the OP, is stretching it in my opinion..........I got one strike on the pitch....count 2-2....

According to the FED rules, it's true.

According to common sense, it's false.

Sometimes strictest interpretation of the rules doesn't make sense.

As a scorekeeper the one FED rule (edit adding rule 9-6 article 1). I flat out ignore is the determination of PB/WP. According to Fed if a ball bounces behind the plate and a runner advances, it's a pased ball and not a wild pitch.

I just don't get that and always will apply the OBR rule.

quote:

Originally posted by yawetag:
According to the Black and White Reading of the FED rules done by somonen with limited experience and no understanding of it's intent,it's true.

According to common sense, it's false.

Fixed that for you.

TX-Ump74,

Although all of the Umps who replied gave their opinion on whether they would call a strike for delay; and no, I wouldn't call one either, none of them specifically answered your question.
To answer you question as written the answer is false because the game would not yet be over. In the scenario given, even if the ump called two strikes, as long as the pitch was delivered the ball remains live. The pitch bounced and was blocked by the catcher. Therefore you have a third strike not caught and until the defense records the third out, the game continues.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
TX-Ump74,

Although all of the Umps who replied gave their opinion on whether they would call a strike for delay; and no, I wouldn't call one either, none of them specifically answered your question.
To answer you question as written the answer is false because the game would not yet be over. In the scenario given, even if the ump called two strikes, as long as the pitch was delivered the ball remains live. The pitch bounced and was blocked by the catcher. Therefore you have a third strike not caught and until the defense records the third out, the game continues.

That is incorrect. You cannot have an uncaught third strike on an awarded third strike for being out of the box (after all, how can you catch a strike that isn't pitched?) The second strike was awarded on the pitch, not the third.

Matt,

Case Book 6.2.4 Situation H indicates that the ball remains live. The situation refers to a pitch that is delivered with a 3-2 count when the batter steps out of the box with one foot or with both feet.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Matt,

Case Book 6.2.4 Situation H indicates that the ball remains live. The situation refers to a pitch that is delivered with a 3-2 count when the batter steps out of the box with one foot or with both feet.

Yes, and the strike is on the pitch in that case play. Not so in the OP.

Tell me how the case play is different from the OP. In both cases the batter stepped out while the pitcher was in motion and subsequently delivered the pitch.
The order in which the strikes were called is not the relevant factor. In all cases, if the umpire did not grant a time out and the pitch was legally delivered, the ball remains live.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Tell me how the case play is different from the OP. In both cases the batter stepped out while the pitcher was in motion and subsequently delivered the pitch.

The third strike wasn't a pitch.

I see what Matt is talking about. The actual pitch in the OP was strike two called because the batter stepped out. Strike 3 was subsequently called, without a pitch being thrown, because the batter stepped out, delaying the game - in the umpire's judgement.

What I don't get in the OP is that by doing it the way the umpire did, he essentially imposed 2 penalties for the same pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
I see what Matt is talking about. The actual pitch in the OP was strike two called because the batter stepped out. Strike 3 was subsequently called, without a pitch being thrown, because the batter stepped out, delaying the game - in the umpire's judgement.

Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
What I don't get in the OP is that by doing it the way the umpire did, he essentially imposed 2 penalties for the same pitch.

Welcome to FED ball. Very little makes sense. This is a ruleset that the defense can benefit from a balk (at least OBR figured out that issue 59 years ago.) Which means that my answer is probably wrong, because it's logical.

Please read the OP again. The pitch was thrown.
I edited my previous post.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Please read the OP again. The pitch was thrown.
I edited my previous post.

Yep, and the order does matter.

Let's use the OP again, but only the batter steps out briefly on the pitch (no delay.) So now you have a two-strike count. Before the next pitch, he steps out again, so there's a penalty strike for the third strike. You would allow him to try for first, because the last pitch of the AB wasn't caught?

quote:

Let's use the OP again, but only the batter steps out briefly on the pitch (no delay.) So now you have a two-strike count. Before the next pitch, he steps out again, so there's a penalty strike for the third strike. You would allow him to try for first, because the last pitch of the AB wasn't caught?

Based on what you said here, no pitch was delivered for the third strike. The third strike was called simply because he stepped out.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:

quote:

Let's use the OP again, but only the batter steps out briefly on the pitch (no delay.) So now you have a two-strike count. Before the next pitch, he steps out again, so there's a penalty strike for the third strike. You would allow him to try for first, because the last pitch of the AB wasn't caught?

Based on what you said here, no pitch was delivered for the third strike. The third strike was called simply because he stepped out.

Exactly. Just like the OP. The third strike wasn't because the pitch was delivered, it was for the delay.

Matt,

It seems that you are saying that since the strikes were verbalized as strike for the pitch then strike for the delay that they are enforced in that order. I don't believe that that is is intent of the rule.

If the ump in the OP enforced the strikes that way I believe he misapplied. The rule book, case book and the OP all refer to a batter leaving the box prior to the delivery of the pitch. If the ump is going to call a strike for the batter stepping out, that strike occurs at that time. (strike 2) The strike because the pitch was delivered occurred subsequent to the batter stepping out and would be strike 3 in the OP.

I could be wrong but I don't believe the ump gets to selectively enforce the order of the strikes under this rule.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
The rule book, case book and the OP all refer to a batter leaving the box prior to the delivery of the pitch. If the ump is going to call a strike for the batter stepping out, that strike occurs at that time. (strike 2) The strike because the pitch was delivered occurred subsequent to the batter stepping out and would be strike 3 in the OP.

6.2.4 SITUATION I RULING (a) suggests that the pitch is the first strike and the award strike follows.

It's FED. Nothing is clear - you can call it any way you want. I'm going to find a way that doesn't penalize the defense for an infraction by the batter.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
The rule book, case book and the OP all refer to a batter leaving the box prior to the delivery of the pitch. If the ump is going to call a strike for the batter stepping out, that strike occurs at that time. (strike 2) The strike because the pitch was delivered occurred subsequent to the batter stepping out and would be strike 3 in the OP.

6.2.4 SITUATION I RULING (a) suggests that the pitch is the first strike and the award strike follows.

It's FED. Nothing is clear - you can call it any way you want. I'm going to find a way that doesn't penalize the defense for an infraction by the batter.

I was going to mention CSFP, as well. If someone wants to explain to a defensive coach how there's a new runner on base when the play started with a 2-1 count and the batter never swung...

Not to mention, with a lefty in particular, the offense could gain a huge advantage by committing this violation. Take a one-strike count, batter takes off running to first as the pitcher goes into his motion, causing the pitch to go wild, so now you have the penalty strike and the pitch strike, and a runner on first before the catcher even has time to retrieve the ball. You have no recourse to remove the runner, if you select this enforcement.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

Not to mention, with a lefty in particular, the offense could gain a huge advantage by committing this violation. Take a one-strike count, batter takes off running to first as the pitcher goes into his motion, causing the pitch to go wild, so now you have the penalty strike and the pitch strike, and a runner on first before the catcher even has time to retrieve the ball. You have no recourse to remove the runner, if you select this enforcement.

I think I would balk the pitcher (dead ball), negate the balk because of the batter's actions, and hit him with a strike for delay. Strike on the batter (and he can't advance if it's strike 3), and the runners return.

Yeah, that's what I'd do.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

Not to mention, with a lefty in particular, the offense could gain a huge advantage by committing this violation. Take a one-strike count, batter takes off running to first as the pitcher goes into his motion, causing the pitch to go wild, so now you have the penalty strike and the pitch strike, and a runner on first before the catcher even has time to retrieve the ball. You have no recourse to remove the runner, if you select this enforcement.

I think I would balk the pitcher (dead ball), negate the balk because of the batter's actions, and hit him with a strike for delay. Strike on the batter (and he can't advance if it's strike 3), and the runners return.

Yeah, that's what I'd do.

Two things:

Balk the pitcher for what?
If you only give the batter one strike, it's now something and 2.

It was a tongue-in-cheek response. I realized it wasn't that obvious, so I added the last line. I guess it didn't get the message across.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
It was a tongue-in-cheek response. I realized it wasn't that obvious, so I added the last line. I guess it didn't get the message across.

</sarcasm>

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

</sarcasm>

Better.