Dropped 3rd

Catcher should've been paying attention.

Comocoach said:

Not with 1st occupied and less than 2 outs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Missed that part. She has no where to go if 1st is occupied.

1. There was one out runner on first, the batter is out.


2. This is high school rules. As it was explained to us, the batter never became the batter-runner, she was out, she did obstruct the throw by running to first and getting in the way of the ball. Obstruction.

We were told to only have the batter run on a legitimate dropped strike with the base empty or two outs. That if in the umpires opinion the runner attempts to confuse the catcher by running to first when not entitled it's obstruction.

In comp it's run no matter what.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The call was correct. No interference on the runner because it wasn’t obvious that she was trying to get in the way of the throw or else the umpires would have ruled it so. What’s worse is that the runs scored on a throwing error by the catcher. Like it or not, her throw was bad enough to hit the runner and ricochet into center field, so E2. Also, the catcher should know how many outs, where the base runners are, how fast they are, where the play is, whether or not to throw, and the rules of the game that most other players ignore. It’s her job.

And before anybody gets onto me about beating catchers up or putting too much on their shoulders, my DD is a catcher. It’s been a long time since she lost track of the situation bad enough to do something like this, and if she ever did it again you can bet she would hear about it on the car ride home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a rule that should be changed in HS and college at least. You can say the catch should know and that is totally true, but so should the batter. It's ridiculous that you can just run when you clearly aren't allowed.

I'd argue my catcher was trying to pick the runner off first and the batter interfered with the pick off when she was not entitled to first base.

I don't know if I'd win that argument but it's one I'd absolutely have.

Sweet Lou said:

I'd argue my catcher was trying to pick the runner off first and the batter interfered with the pick off when she was not entitled to first base.

I don't know if I'd win that argument but it's one I'd absolutely have.

Click to expand...

This is the only time that would warrant an interference call on the player running to first after a D3K when first base was occupied. However, I believe the OP stated that the runners stayed on their bases, so it might be a bit of a stretch.

Ajaywill said:

This is the only time that would warrant an interference call on the player running to first after a D3K when first base was occupied. However, I believe the OP stated that the runners stayed on their bases, so it might be a bit of a stretch.

Click to expand...

He said "holding their position" I took that to mean "stopped where they took their lead reading the dropped ball" but maybe it meant "planted on 1st like a statue".