Dropped third

Sweet Lou said:

And I think everyone esle would agree that fielders standing near the circle would have zero expecation of "impeeding a baserunner" nor should they.

Click to expand...

And to think that those who know the rules would also know that a baserunner determines the basepath and can run out to high-five a spectator at the right field fence going from 1st to 2nd and if and if a defender gets in the runner's path to the point of forcing the runner to hesitate or change that path, it is obstruction.

MTR said:

And to think that those who know the rules would also know that a baserunner determines the basepath and can run out to high-five a spectator at the right field fence going from 1st to 2nd and if and if a defender gets in the runner's path to the point of forcing the runner to hesitate or change that path, it is obstruction.

Click to expand...

Seems like we're back to strategy of having the dropped 3rd strike batter run toward the closest fielder they can find to become obstructed because the basepath is wherever they want it to be. To combat this while on defense, I will teach my fielders to scream run and sprint toward the OF so the batter can't catch them before the C throws to 1B for the force. And I thought U8 games were circuses.

PS With respect to determining purposefullness, if MLB umps can't tell whether a P intentionally is throwing at a batter when they're hit by a curve ball, I have limited confidence that less experienced umpires can distinguish intent. A modicum of common sense is required.

Greenmonsters said:

Seems like we're back to strategy of having the dropped 3rd strike batter run toward the closest fielder they can find to become obstructed because the basepath is wherever they want it to be. To combat this while on defense, I will teach my fielders to scream run and sprint toward the OF so the batter can't catch them before the C throws to 1B for the force. And I thought U8 games were circuses.

Click to expand...

Other than the point that I believe using umpires on 8U games is a complete waste of resources, you may want to go back and comprehend post #36. It isn't difficult, anyone should be able to understand it and certainly easy enough to avoid making idiotic comments like the one above.

PS With respect to determining purposefullness, if MLB umps can't tell whether a P intentionally is throwing at a batter when they're hit by a curve ball, I have limited confidence that less experienced umpires can distinguish intent. A modicum of common sense is required.

Click to expand...

Yes, common sense is used often in officiating any sport. And then there are the specific rules to which the TEAMS have agreed to play and the OFFICIALS directed to apply. And, really, comparing this to MLB, as if a Sox fan would know anything about baseball? Let me tell you something, bubba. I know plenty of softball umpires that are smarter, better with mechanics, positioning and rules than many of your MLB.

And please don't confuse level of play with absolute ability in any field. They are not comparable.

MTR, lets just say we'll agree to disagree on this one. Whoda think that this Yankee fan would be siding with Red Sox fan? The end must be near.

MTR said:

Other than the point that I believe using umpires on 8U games is a complete waste of resources, you may want to go back and comprehend post #36. It isn't difficult, anyone should be able to understand it and certainly easy enough to avoid making idiotic comments like the one above.



Yes, common sense is used often in officiating any sport. And then there are the specific rules to which the TEAMS have agreed to play and the OFFICIALS directed to apply. And, really, comparing this to MLB, as if a Sox fan would know anything about baseball? Let me tell you something, bubba. I know plenty of softball umpires that are smarter, better with mechanics, positioning and rules than many of your MLB.

And please don't confuse level of play with absolute ability in any field. They are not comparable.

Click to expand...

1. Guess what, I agree with you. Going back to the original point of contention though, unless one of the fielders in the middle of the diamond tried to tackle the DTS batter/runner as she sprinted from the 3B dugout towards 1B, an obstruction call is no more idiotic than my comment.

2. I respect good umpires whether they be BB, SB, minor league of MLB. And in real life, I endeavor to treat both good and bad umpires respectfully. As far as confusing level of performance with ability, there's usually a pretty good reason why not everyone is equally outstanding in their chosen field or career.

3. That I'm being defended by a Yankees fan convinces me that we all can get along. Along those lines, how about the 3 of us get together and go to the next scheduled Fidelco Seeing Eye Dog/Handgun Giveaway Night game in the Bronx?

I had the following scenario runners on first and second one out. The catcher drops the third strike and batter takes off for first, the catcher throws down to first as other runners move up one base. The umpire says nothing about batter being out until throw reaches first. My contention is that the umpire should have called batter out at once or returned runners to 1st and 2nd as batter confused team which applies under interference rules.

I think that you have to call obstruction here.

The batter-runner is legally running the bases. She was impeded in her effort by defensive players that were neither fielding a batted ball nor in possession of the ball. That is a textbook definition of obstruction.

Whether or not the defensive player(s) had an "expectation" of obstructing the runner is immaterial, as that is not a stipulation of the rule. Nothing says that obstruction must be a willfull act. Fielders accidently obstruct runners fairly often...and it's still obstruction.

As for the B/R purposely running "at" a fielder to draw an obstruction call...that is a different kettle of fish! It's pretty easy to tell if a runner is running toward a base in an effort to reach it, versus running away from it and at a fielder to draw a bogus obstruction call.

attic dan said:

I had the following scenario runners on first and second one out. The catcher drops the third strike and batter takes off for first, the catcher throws down to first as other runners move up one base. The umpire says nothing about batter being out until throw reaches first. My contention is that the umpire should have called batter out at once or returned runners to 1st and 2nd as batter confused team which applies under interference rules.

Click to expand...

The batter was out, by rule, whether the umpire uttered those magic words or not. It is a recommened umpire mechanic to announce the batter is out if she begins running when not entitled to, just to head off this kind of confusion. But it is not required and has no bearing on the actual rule or ruling. The batter is out just the same, no matter what the umpire said or didn't say.

The defense has the responsibility to know the situation and react to it accordingly- that is, to not make unecessary throws to retire an already retired batter and to instead play upon the other active runners who are legally advancing. If they make a bad throw, or ignore the other runners...their bad.

A retired batter running when not entitled to on an uncaught third strike is NOT interference. The rules specifically address this and clearly state that the act of running, alone and in itself, is NOT to be ruled as interference. The only way this can be ruled as interference is if the retired batter actually interferes with the defense making a play on one of the other runners. An example would be if the runner on first base was trying to dive back to the bag and the throw there hit the retired batter. A throw toward first base that is not part of an effort to retire one of the other active runners is nothing more than an ill-advised throw.

I've been hoping that GI Tom would come back and give us his reasoning for the no-call. As my post above may have suggested, as far as I can see this is black-letter obstruction.

For those calling this ridiculous, or referring to the batter-runner as Red Riding Hood, consider:

1) The batter swung at strike 3, and headed for her dugout. That's perfectly normal, particularly if she didn't see the ball skip.
2) She was then alerted by her bench that she could run to first.
3) She DID run to first, in a straight line from where she was. Isn't that what she should do?

What, exactly, did the batter do wrong? And regardless of that, is there any rule support for not calling obstruction under those circumstances?

Are you telling me that a runner that was tagged out at third can then get up and run for home, in an attempt to draw a throw?