Dropped third strike play

BlaineAB said:

Well, the rule does mention “an act that confuses any fielder.” I think a case could be made that the act of the batter running to first base when they aren’t entitled to confused the catcher.

Now, the offensive coach would probably argue, maybe even correctly, that the batter just lost track of the count, there was no ill intent. I don’t think intent should matter. What did the defensive player do in response to the action of the offensive player?

Click to expand...

This is my biggest argument for making this a dead ball. I am OK with assuming innocence (the first time) and not penalizing the offense, but I have serious issue with allowing them to benefit.

I still do not understand why "the defense should know" but the offense is allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED AND REWARDED for ignorance.

I agree, let’s be able to kill the play right away; neither the offense or defense gets penalized, we don’t have to discern anyone’s intent, etc.

NFHS rule 10-2-3-G allows the plate umpire to “make final decision on points not covered by the rules.”

In this case, batter, back in the box, run does not count, get back on third.

BlaineAB said:

NFHS rule 10-2-3-G allows the plate umpire to “make final decision on points not covered by the rules.”

In this case, batter, back in the box, run does not count, get back on third.

Click to expand...

It is covered in the rules and case plays. It is not a violation.

What would constitute an act that confuses a fielder if that doesn't count?

Comp said:

It is covered in the rules and case plays. It is not a violation.

Click to expand...

Case plays. It is covered in the case plays, but even then, not directly. Absent that, I would call it the text-book definition of interference. (Unless it is an old case play that has been removed.)

Neither this play, nor notion of "the defense should know" appears anywhere in the rule book. The definition of interference is very clear.

There isn't a ruleset in existence that considers this to be interference.

Comp said:

There isn't a ruleset in existence that considers this to be interference.

Click to expand...

It’s a judgement call. A case could be made that the batter running to first when they aren’t allowed to is in fact interference; the NFHS rule set doesn’t define what “confuses” entails, but in my judgment this certainly is confusing for the catcher in this case.

From a game management and spirit of fair play, the best thing to do is kill the play. Offensive coach doesn’t like that? Ok coach, would you rather have your batter out for interference.

In the unlikely event this ever happens in a game I’m calling I’ll post what call I made!

BlaineAB said:

It’s a judgement call. A case could be made that the batter running to first when they aren’t allowed to is in fact interference; the NFHS rule set doesn’t define what “confuses” entails, but in my judgment this certainly is confusing for the catcher in this case.

From a game management and spirit of fair play, the best thing to do is kill the play. Offensive coach doesn’t like that? Ok coach, would you rather have your batter out for interference.

In the unlikely event this ever happens in a game I’m calling I’ll post what call I made!

Click to expand...

It isn't a judgement call. Unless you are a mind reader, you (generally) can't really know what is going through coaches/players mind (exception below), and if you don't want a whole lot of coaches yelling, spectators going nuts and making your life harder, don't make a call which has a very accepted way of being handled. It is instructed this way at USA Softball (and a bunch of other softball and baseball umpire trainings I have been to).

From my notes and how I have handled it in game (I was not the umpire on 1, I have been on 2):
In normal circumstances, no call, warning if felt needed (suspicious?). Restricted to bench/ejection for subsequent (any BR).

Now the 2 exceptions which removed the judgement/intent issue:
1) One HS coach locally we ejected a coach for multiple occurrences over several games and him gloating about it between games. That got around quick (Softball is gossipy) and when it happened AGAIN, it got called.
2) Signaling you had intent - for example one idiot coach was high fiving and gloating about 'running the play' when it happened. Made the decision easy. When I was on a game where this happened tat idiot got himself tossed.

I don't want them defining it is the rulebook because this is the sort of 'one rare circumstance with an idiot coach' - you don't want to make rules around that because the rule book becomes 10,000 pages long. Maybe a specific case study could be written but case studies are all over the place in terms of availability and updating depending on the sanction.

Comp said:

There isn't a ruleset in existence that considers this to be interference.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it should be. I'm saying the rules, by letter of the law, would indicate it is. Case plays indicate a different expectation, which I am OK with as it justifies "these are kids and things happen."

My argument is that there is an even better way to handle it: I'm arguing the offense should not be allowed to benefit for causing the trainwreck.

I'll die on the hill that "the defense should know" reason for allowing anything while excusing the offense for the same situation is possibly the most ignorant argument ever made in umpiring circles. "The players should know" and we should accept that most of the games we do involve silly, fun-loving children.