Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

Register Log in

Batter running to first on strike two play

Oct 4, 2018
799
63
Ugh. I hate the busch league stuff. Haven't seen this one yet, but of course many coaches tell their girls to run to first after strike three, dropped or not. And I don't have a problem with that, and fortunately our catchers don't screw up that play.
 
Aug 1, 2019
47
18
South Carolina
I have read the onus on the defense to know the count, etc. however this is not a codified rule, where does that line of thought originate from? The only rule that clearly applies is "confusion" which it is certainly intended to do, with a secondary rule violation as the 10 seconds for batter to retake the box.
Quite honestly, I wish the powers-that-be get rid of the word "confuse" in the Interference rule. We see offensive players do things all the time to confuse the defense, to include:

- Show bunt then swing away
- Feint a steal and return to their base
- Swing with zero intent to hit the ball to rattle the catcher on her throw to retire a stealing runner
- Pretend to tag up on a caught fly ball to force a throw, and then return to their previous base
- Trot to first base on a walk, and then continue for second while there's a runner on third
- Place the wrong on-deck batter in the circle
- Run to a forced base, and then retreat from the fielder waiting to tag her (not talking about the BR going back toward home to avoid a tag)

These are just a few examples off the top of my head where an offensive team member does something PERFECTLY LEGAL to confuse the defense that pretty much everyone acknowledges is nothing. So why should a batter who may be confused as to the count be penalized with interference?

Also, don't forget that interference happens when the batter or runner hinders the defense from making a play. What play did this batter hinder? She didn't hinder the catcher from making a play on the runner at third. Rather, she fooled the catcher into making a throw to first base when a throw was unnecessary. That's not interference. That's just a catcher who isn't paying attention.
 
Jun 11, 2013
2,033
48
Ugh. I hate the busch league stuff. Haven't seen this one yet, but of course many coaches tell their girls to run to first after strike three, dropped or not. And I don't have a problem with that, and fortunately our catchers don't screw up that play.
I agree 100 percent. Total Bush league play. I am amazed at how many players at fairly high levels and ages don't know these simple rules.
 
Jul 9, 2019
4
1
I took it as swing at anything low and run, i was wondering also how they practice that. But they did conference beforehand and it looked intentional.

I found the usa rules interpretation from 7/11. It can be interference, but merely running without a right to do so is not automatic interference.
 

Attachments

Jul 9, 2019
4
1
So i get out of that, drill the batter running in the back with the ball, get a double play since the runner on third would also be out😂 .
 
Jun 12, 2015
3,774
63
The coaches that use trick plays to win on a regular basis have no faith in their own coaching or their players' abilities. They get that reputation, too. Everyone local ends up knowing the signature trick plays. They don't work once everyone knows what they are. And of course when these teams play actual high-level teams, they lose every time. I think it's sleazy, but I also think the defensive players should know the count. If this happened to us I'd mostly be pissed that we fell for it.
 
Aug 1, 2019
47
18
South Carolina
I took it as swing at anything low and run, i was wondering also how they practice that. But they did conference beforehand and it looked intentional.

I found the usa rules interpretation from 7/11. It can be interference, but merely running without a right to do so is not automatic interference.
Just to be clear, the USA interpretation provides two different scenarios. The first one, as they clarified, would not be interference because the catcher threw an ill-advised throw to first base, judged to be the catcher's failure to understand the situation, that went wild. The second scenario was clearly a pickoff throw to retire R1 that the retired batter hindered, so that would be interference.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,314
63
So i get out of that, drill the batter running in the back with the ball, get a double play since the runner on third would also be out😂 .
And now you are going to need a new catcher because that one isn't playing anymore, and If I believe it was instructed by the coach then the coach is going to the parking lot.

As was stated, the case play you found only the first part of the case play applies. The second part of the case play involves interfering with a play on another runner, not a play on the batter running to first base.
 
Sep 5, 2012
41
8
Any time that play is suspended, it is a prudent thing to give the count to both the batter & the defense once everything resets & before you restart play. It helps to prevent thing like this from happening.

If I did judge the batter's act to be intentional, "Interference" would be the call & the runner closest to home would be out. That would've solved that issue! If it was obvious that the player was instructed by her coach to purposely do this, then said coach would be in jeopardy of removal. A stern warning at the very least would be warranted. I personally have a very low tolerance for those types of things. I don't consider that a "trick" play, I consider it bush league.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
34,370
Messages
500,134
Members
15,824
Latest member
jmax26
Top