Batter running to first on strike two play

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

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

Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
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.

Except it isn't interference. The defense is responsible for knowing the situation and the count and that there is no play at first base. You may not like it, but you cannot simply call something interference that isnt.

And why are you calling the runner closest to home out? The only time the runner closest to home is out if is the interference is by a player who is already out. The batter running to first on strike 2 is not out, if you are calling interference, then that is the player that is out.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2018
809
93
CT
This summer at 10U, we trained both our catchers any time there were 2 strikes, to call out (and hand single at the same time) "Cake 3" for a situation where dropped 3rd was in effect, and "No Cake 3" for a situation where it wasn't. Why "cake 3"?...I think last year we heard an opposing coach say "cupcake" whenever there was a potential dropped 3rd, and we modified it. The hand signal was just 3 fingers waving side to down.

It took half the year before we (coaches) didn't have to remind them, and the catchers would call it themselves. They got it eventually though. Never had a game where they threw it down to first by mistake (where the runner ran with 1st base occupied).
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
Ok ... some interesting research on this ... and the results may be contrary to popular wisdom.

NFHS 2016 Softball Case Book (I need to break down and get new digital ones ... trying to hold out for 2020)
8.1.1 SITUATION B: With less than two outs and R1 on first base, F2 drops B2’s third strike. B2 begins running to first base, F2 attempts to throw B2 out and overthrows F3. RULING: As soon as B2 starts to run to first, the umpire shall forcefully announce that B2 is out (because of the third strike and first base being occupied). The ball remains live.

USA Softball June 2017 Plays and Clarifications
Play
: With R1 on 1B, B2 has a 2-1 count. The next pitch is a ball and B2, thinking it is ball 4 heads to 1B and R1 advances to 2B. The plate umpire states that was only ball 3, so B2 comes back to bat with a 3-1 count. What happens to R1?

Ruling:
In this play the offensive and defense have the responsibility to know the count. When R1 advanced to 2B the ball remains live as if they were stealing. B2 would be returned to bat and R1 would remain on 2B. However this is a great preventative umpire situation. When the plate umpire sees B2 start to 1B, call time and now nothing can happen and we will have less of a problem than if we had allowed the play to continue.

Just for reference:
NFHS Baseball 2018 Case Book
10.2.3 SITUATION G: With R2 on second and R1 on first and no outs, B3 hits an infield fly, but the umpire fails to call "infield fly." Is the infield fly in effect or not? RULING: Even though the infield fly rule was not announced by the umpire, it is still in effect. Both teams have the responsibility to know when conditions exist for an infield fly.



After you digest all that, I will offer up another piece of wisdom:
“Is not interference” and “Cannot be interference” are two very different things.

“Is not interference” means that it isn’t automatically interference, not that it can’t be interference. The act of running in and of itself is not interference. The conditions that surround the running can make it interference though.
 
May 23, 2018
93
18
Watched a trick play run on another team tonight. Runner in third, 2 outs. Third base coach confers with batter, 1-1 count, then Batter swings at strike TWO in the dirt, and takes off to first. Catcher throws to 1b and runner on 3b scores. My contention is this is interference on the batter as it was an act intentionally to confuse the catcher. Asa and nfhs both mention the confusing act as interference.

The run was allowed to score after conference. Catcher was injured at home on the play and the injury took precedence for the coach rather than the rules interpretation. What say you?


As an umpire, I can tell you that 1st base is the only base where there is never an interference for running it out. It is very similar to a girl that strikes out with a base occupied and less than 2 outs. She cannot advanced and is out. If a girl attempts to advance to 1st base on a drop 3rd strike, or what is perceived to be a drop 3rd strike, the catcher is presumed to know the rule as well as the count. That is why interference is never, ever, called when a girl runs to 1st base on an erroneous count. Now, under rule 8, if a girl is a batter-runner and attempts to retreat to prevent being tagged out at 1st base in this itself, would constitute an interference, and the better runner would be out and all runners return to the last previously touched base.


That play could have been remedied. Quite simply, if the umpire in charge knew the rule. Under USA softball, rule 10, the umpire is empowered to call and impose timeout whenever it is justified to prevent manifest injustice. For example, if you had runners on 1st and 2nd base and a 3 and 1 count on the batter, and the pitch is a strike, but the batter thinks it is a ball and starts to go to 1st base and everyone else now thinks it is a ball in attempts to advance to their base, the umpire is empowered to immediately call time so that the players would not be tagged out. Something like this would clearly be an administrative timeout and would be used to prevent manifest injustice. That same rule cannot be applied to a drop 3rd strike because it is presumed that the catcher, as well as the coaches, know the count as well as the number of outs.

In the situation you have described, the umpire should have invoked rule 10 and send the runner back to 3rd base, and have the batter come back into the batter's box. The problem that you have is umpires not knowing the rules, or their application. No, the rule and this will never happen again!
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
The first play has nothing to do with the situation and it does say the ball remains live even in that play. There is no out to "forcefully announce the batter out". Simply announce that is only 2 strikes and let play continue.

The USA information you posted was universally panned when it came out as it goes directly against the rule book which states time shall not be called while playing action is going on and runners are off base. The only exception to this is for injury that requires immediate attention. " Rule 10-4-E An umpire shall not call time while any play is in progress, including when a thrown ball hits an umpire." And, that wasn't even written as a clarification, it was written as someones idea of "game management".

What does an infield fly have anything to do with the situation in the original post? Yes, both teams are responsible to know the situation, so what? The defense still needs to know what play they have available to them and make the appropriate play.

NFHS case play 3.6.13 Sit B is very similar to the USA information you posted and is the case play I mentioned earlier in this thread about the defense is responsible to know the situation and play accordingly. "The defensive team should always be alert to the count and attempt plays accordingly."

The original play posted is not interference.
 
May 23, 2018
93
18
Ok ... some interesting research on this ... and the results may be contrary to popular wisdom.

NFHS 2016 Softball Case Book (I need to break down and get new digital ones ... trying to hold out for 2020)
8.1.1 SITUATION B: With less than two outs and R1 on first base, F2 drops B2’s third strike. B2 begins running to first base, F2 attempts to throw B2 out and overthrows F3. RULING: As soon as B2 starts to run to first, the umpire shall forcefully announce that B2 is out (because of the third strike and first base being occupied). The ball remains live.

USA Softball June 2017 Plays and Clarifications
Play
: With R1 on 1B, B2 has a 2-1 count. The next pitch is a ball and B2, thinking it is ball 4 heads to 1B and R1 advances to 2B. The plate umpire states that was only ball 3, so B2 comes back to bat with a 3-1 count. What happens to R1?

Ruling:
In this play the offensive and defense have the responsibility to know the count. When R1 advanced to 2B the ball remains live as if they were stealing. B2 would be returned to bat and R1 would remain on 2B. However this is a great preventative umpire situation. When the plate umpire sees B2 start to 1B, call time and now nothing can happen and we will have less of a problem than if we had allowed the play to continue.

Just for reference:
NFHS Baseball 2018 Case Book
10.2.3 SITUATION G: With R2 on second and R1 on first and no outs, B3 hits an infield fly, but the umpire fails to call "infield fly." Is the infield fly in effect or not? RULING: Even though the infield fly rule was not announced by the umpire, it is still in effect. Both teams have the responsibility to know when conditions exist for an infield fly.



After you digest all that, I will offer up another piece of wisdom:
“Is not interference” and “Cannot be interference” are two very different things.

“Is not interference” means that it isn’t automatically interference, not that it can’t be interference. The act of running in and of itself is not interference. The conditions that surround the running can make it interference though.

Very good answers! As a fellow blue, there is little known rule 10 that allows the umpire to apply a timeout even though it is not called. That is for the situation where there are multiple runners on the base and the batter has a 3 and 1 count on her in the umpire indicates a strike. Obviously, the girl at 2nd base cannot hear the umpire and thinks it is ball four and attempts to jaunt to 3rd base. The umpire is empowered to call time, or even imposed time if it was not called, to prevent injustice.

They have modified will turn over the years because rule 10, back in its heyday, use the state that the offending team could not profit or be made better off from an infraction. The situation I am thinking of is a runner on 1st base, a pop fly to the 2nd baseman, who was then run over by R1. The argument is: was it one out or was it 2 outs on the play. Under the old point of emphasis, this was ruled a double play.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
No rule 10 does not give the umpire authority to call time anytime they think there is an injustice. I just posted the rule, rule 10 states time "shall not" be called while play is in progress except for in the case of an injury that requires immediate medical attention.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
The first play has nothing to do with the situation and it does say the ball remains live even in that play. There is no out to "forcefully announce the batter out". Simply announce that is only 2 strikes and let play continue.

The USA information you posted was universally panned when it came out as it goes directly against the rule book which states time shall not be called while playing action is going on and runners are off base. The only exception to this is for injury that requires immediate attention. " Rule 10-4-E An umpire shall not call time while any play is in progress, including when a thrown ball hits an umpire." And, that wasn't even written as a clarification, it was written as someones idea of "game management".

What does an infield fly have anything to do with the situation in the original post? Yes, both teams are responsible to know the situation, so what? The defense still needs to know what play they have available to them and make the appropriate play.

NFHS case play 3.6.13 Sit B is very similar to the USA information you posted and is the case play I mentioned earlier in this thread about the defense is responsible to know the situation and play accordingly. "The defensive team should always be alert to the count and attempt plays accordingly."

The original play posted is not interference.

The cases I presented establish two concepts (one from another thread):

1) There is no exception granted by rule to the offense not knowing the situation/count. BOTH offense and defense are expected to know. This removes the “can’t be interference” argument when a batter runs improperly.

2) There are indeed mechanics to help prevent this on the umpire’s part. It was argued in another thread that umpires should not intervene. That was an incorrect line of thought, though one should always tread lightly if you are going to try to use a mechanic from one code in another code.

I am working out of an old softball case book (2016) at the moment ... there is no 3.6.13 in there. (3.6.1 is Illegal Equipment).
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
Nothing you posted says it can be ruled interference. Allnit said was both teams should know the situation. And in the case of the nfhs case play it says if the umpire feels it has been done intentionally the umpire may eject the player, but it still says nothing about calling interference or ruling an out.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,481
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top