Dropped third strike play

[BlaineAB]

A friend described this recent play to me:

Runner on 2nd, 2 outs a 2-1 count on the batter; pitcher throws a change up that the batter swings at misses. Ball hits the dirt before the catcher catches it. Runner on 2nd broke for third on pitch release.
Batter takes off for first thinking it was strike three. Catcher instinctually throws to first, runner now on third goes home on the throw to first. Umpire brings the batter back to the plate to finish the at bat, run allowed to count.

Right call? Could a case be made for interference, since the batter confused the catcher?

 

[chinamigarden]

A friend described this recent play to me:

Runner on 2nd, 2 outs a 2-1 count on the batter; pitcher throws a change up that the batter swings at misses. Ball hits the dirt before the catcher catches it. Runner on 2nd broke for third on pitch release.
Batter takes off for first thinking it was strike three. Catcher instinctually throws to first, runner now on third goes home on the throw to first. Umpire brings the batter back to the plate to finish the at bat, run allowed to count.View attachment 29555

Right call? Could a case be made for interference, since the batter confused the catcher?

Typically this is called exactly the way it was in your game. It’s up to the defense to know the game situations and the count.

 

[Gags]

I’m sure there are coaches out there who “coach” this sort of play, but based on previous posts here, the expectation is that the defense needs to know the situation.

If I had the experience of some of the umpires we have here, and knew that a particular team always seems to have a batter conveniently “forget” what the count was, then I might go with an interference call; but I’m not an umpire, which means I also don’t get to eject the coach when he comes out to argue after the bush-league play they spent hours on at practice didn’t work for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlaineAB]

The NFHS rule set doesn’t define what constitutes “confuses any fielder”, but I think a case can be made for interference.

In the USA rule set, 8-7-P states in part, “a runner continuing to run and draw a throw may be considered a form of interference.”
Runner closest to home is also out.

Would I call it in a rec game? No.
Varsity game? Yes. Haven’t had to yet, though.

 

[The Man In Blue]

This is one of those "sticky-icky" plays that umpires who like to live in the case book and word-of-mouth interpretations will die on. They will incorrectly claim this is NEVER interference based on the interpretation that the defense should be aware. I don't like that approach. "The defense should be aware" is the antithesis to the definition of interference.

I cannot find a case play directly relating to that scenario. There is a case play of a bater-runner running when not able to (first base occupied, less than two outs) and he catcher makes a play. The case play states the ball stays live as the umpire should "forcefully announce B2 is out." This indicates the ball stays live despite the runner's actions.

The "should be aware" verbiage comes from the infield fly rule and is routinely misapplied by umpires, though it makes sense.

Yes, the play was adjudicated properly. Typically, you are given an assumption of innocence once. Try it a second time and you are likely to get the result @Gags was alluding to. Then it is an intentional action to impede, hinder, or confuse, the defense.

Personally, I would like to see a rule or interpretation implemented that makes it a dead ball with no penalty the first incident. That will never happen though.

 

[CoachJD]

Here's another wrinkle: Shouldn't this play also include a ball on the batter?

Rule 6-3 Art. 2 says "The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher, or to play on a base runner."

The batter is not a base runner or a batter-runner in this situation. She's just a batter running for no reason. Throwing to first violates this rule.

FWIW, I've seen this stuff happen when a batter forgets the count. A lot of times it's a newer player. I do know a guy who would probably try this on purpose, but I think he's likely too stupid to think of it.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Here's another wrinkle: Shouldn't this play also include a ball on the batter?

Rule 6-3 Art. 2 says "The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher, or to play on a base runner."

The batter is not a base runner or a batter-runner in this situation. She's just a batter running for no reason. Throwing to first violates this rule.

FWIW, I've seen this stuff happen when a batter forgets the count. A lot of times it's a newer player. I do know a guy who would probably try this on purpose, but I think he's likely too stupid to think of it.

I think this probably lends credence to an interference call? It doesn't seem logical that you can call a ball on this action that was incited by the batter's running.

 

[Comp]

The defense is responsible for knowing the count and making the appropriate play, which is not to throw to first unnecessarily on a batter with only 2 strikes. Nowhere in the case plays does it say this is interference. But, NFHS does have a statement in one of the case plays that says if the umpire believes it to be a coached tactic they should issue a warning and if it occurs again to eject coach and restrict player to bench. It still does not call for any outs to be called for interference.

 

[BlaineAB]

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?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Here's another wrinkle: Shouldn't this play also include a ball on the batter?

Rule 6-3 Art. 2 says "The catcher shall return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch, except after a strikeout or putout made by the catcher, or to play on a base runner."

The batter is not a base runner or a batter-runner in this situation. She's just a batter running for no reason. Throwing to first violates this rule.

FWIW, I've seen this stuff happen when a batter forgets the count. A lot of times it's a newer player. I do know a guy who would probably try this on purpose, but I think he's likely too stupid to think of it.

No. But if you want to go that route, I have a strike on the batter for leaving the box. (No, don't do either of those.)