Dropped third

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Sep 13, 2011
7
0
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.

When a runner who is out continues to run has to be confusing a defense by definition,so any gain must be made right,by returning runners to previous bases.
 
Sep 13, 2011
7
0
BretMan is telling you that, by rule, running on an uncaught third strike is not interference.

I'm not going to quote the whole rule, but it states that interference should be called when...obstructs,impedes,hinders, or confuses fielder attempting to make a play. A batter running to first after a strikeout has to be by definition an attempt to confuse team. Are we talking semantics, I don't understand what I'm missing here it seems cut and dry to me.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
I'm not going to quote the whole rule, but it states that interference should be called when...obstructs,impedes,hinders, or confuses fielder attempting to make a play. A batter running to first after a strikeout has to be by definition an attempt to confuse team. Are we talking semantics, I don't understand what I'm missing here it seems cut and dry to me.

I cannot find the rule number at the moment to quote you, but, there is a specific rule which states as Bretman has indicated the interference rule does not apply to a batter/runner running on a dropped third strike, unless they have interfered with a play on another runner. The defense is responsible for knowing the situation and making the appropriate play. The catcher should be aware of the number of outs and that no throw to retire the batter is required.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
ASA 8-7-P. See your other thread.

NFHS 8.6.18 and ASA 8.7.P.Note both specifically state this rule (running after being retired to draw a throw) applies when a perceived BR attempts to advance on an U3K.
 
Jan 24, 2011
144
0
Texas
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?

Honus (and all others),

Just had an opportunity to see this thread again today, my apologies for the delay. I will have to say, it's a spirited discussion and I need to further clarify. I probably didn't post clearly enough in my originial description and let me tell you all why we stayed with the out call.

As the girl is cutting across the diamond (which is perfectly ok, I was never arguing about out of baseline as others have, she has the right to do this in this play), the girls in the center are scattering and the baserunner is running, I'm watching the whole thing but not really focusing on the runner directly, but looking for a tag by the pitcher or the transfer of the ball to F3 as the coach was yelling, and after our discussion, so was my partner.

So, when I say "dodging" (poor term now in retrospect) I really meant to say everyone was in a jumbled mess getting out of the way of everyone else. Neither one of us could clearly say after the fact if the batter was actually obstructed in our collective observation.

Without this evidence, we both stuck with the out call. I will tell you, it was truly mayhem and very difficult to describe how it unfolded (as I know severaly of my umpires in arms will attest to accurately describing a situation). To answer further, we had no problem calling OBS if we had actually seen it, but we didn't.

Did it likely happen? If there is video footage, I would wager there is a high probability, but at the time, we simply did not unmistakably see OBS.

It was one that I won't forget anytime soon though. :)
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
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?

You couldn't pay me to go to a MLB ball game unless the stadium was worth seeing. Now that Yankee Stadium is gone, there is no reason to go within the confines of the five boroughs. The last time I attended an MLB game, it was at Wrigley (I was there to see the ballpark), and four umpires couldn't get a simple INT call right that a first year softball umpire who has attended the appropriate clinics could have handled.

But you can agree to disagree all you want, you would be wrong. As absurd as you think it is, it is an extremely easy OBS call as described. You don't have to like it, the rules are not made for the spectators, but to protect the players on the field and the game being played.
 

Greenmonsters

Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
Feb 21, 2009
6,168
38
New England
You couldn't pay me to go to a MLB ball game unless the stadium was worth seeing. Now that Yankee Stadium is gone, there is no reason to go within the confines of the five boroughs. The last time I attended an MLB game, it was at Wrigley (I was there to see the ballpark), and four umpires couldn't get a simple INT call right that a first year softball umpire who has attended the appropriate clinics could have handled.

But you can agree to disagree all you want, you would be wrong. As absurd as you think it is, it is an extremely easy OBS call as described. You don't have to like it, the rules are not made for the spectators, but to protect the players on the field and the game being played.

LOL, my contrarian hat has been removed. BTW - I see now that the original situation has been clarified and resolved appropriately ;).
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,473
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top