DTS=Train Wreck

[Ken B]

Here's one I found that started off easy, but as it developed, became a train wreck:

"Let me know what your opinion is on this situation - U10 Tournament. Parents, coaches and umpire were all confused on what the ruling on field should be.
Bases loaded 1 out. Catcher drops the ball on 3rd strike. Coach tells catcher to step on home plate (which she does). The other team coach yells for their girl to run to 1rst. Catcher is confused so she throws to 1rst base but doesn't make the throw in time. Runners are advancing so 1rst baseman throws home, which too late for tag. 1 run scores. Catcher sees the girl who just struck out running to steal 2nd so she throws down to 2nd base. Another run scores.... I know from previous tournaments the rules is if 1rst base is occupied then the batter is out. I thought it should be 2 outs with bases still loaded. Other team coach argued with umpire that if catcher throws the ball to 1rst runners are allowed to steal, both runs count, everyone is safe except the girl now standing on 2nd base who struck out. Umpire rules in their favor." From a poster at weplay.

 

[Sweet Lou]

Other team coach argued with umpire that if catcher throws the ball to 1rst runners are allowed to steal, both runs count, everyone is safe except the girl now standing on 2nd base who struck out. Umpire rules in their favor." From a poster at weplay.

This is it. The batter is out. Catcher never should have thrown the ball to first but once she does, the ball is still live.

 

[MTR]

This is it. The batter is out. Catcher never should have thrown the ball to first but once she does, the ball is still live.

However, you may also have interference. The rules exclude an INT call on a retired batter running to 1B on a DTS and drawing a throw when not applicable. There is no exclusion for the player running to 2B.

 

[Sweet Lou]

However, you may also have interference. The rules exclude an INT call on a retired batter running to 1B on a DTS and drawing a throw when not applicable. There is no exclusion for the player running to 2B.

Did not know that. Good to know. So in this case on the throw to second if the ump ruled interference then second run might have been called out since she was closest to home?

 

[MTR]

Did not know that. Good to know. So in this case on the throw to second if the ump ruled interference then second run might have been called out since she was closest to home?

I don't know how many umpires would realize it on the field and it certainly wasn't a light bulb for me. Had to run the scenarios a few times before I realized that the retired batter could have easily been mistaken for the runner which started at 1B during all that confusion. I understand the reason the play to 1B isn't INT (and, btw, it is a rule relaxed due to coaching), but that player cannot be permitted the freedom to run rampant on the field without a penalty. And if the offense wants to complain, tell them to direct it toward the 1B coach who should have also known she was out and to not run.

 

[Alan Snedeker]

However, you may also have interference. The rules exclude an INT call on a retired batter running to 1B on a DTS and drawing a throw when not applicable. There is no exclusion for the player running to 2B.

I see some grey area here. The rule you are referring to is:. ASA 8 - Section 7 - P under Note:

"A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled to run on the dropped third strike rule."

"Entitled" is a key word here. She should have been out and is therefore not "entitled" to run to first. I do agree the running to second and the second throw should be interference. Though I don't see anything wrong with a batter running to first on dropped third strike no matter the scenario.

This scenario seems to happen often when coaches don't know how many outs there are, and batters are taught to run on dropped third strike no matter what. It has happened several times in our 10U games and have never seen interference called.

 

[Comp]

I see some grey area here. The rule you are referring to is:. ASA 8 - Section 7 - P under Note:

"A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled to run on the dropped third strike rule."

"Entitled" is a key word here. She should have been out and is therefore not "entitled" to run to first. I do agree the running to second and the second throw should be interference. Though I don't see anything wrong with a batter running to first on dropped third strike no matter the scenario.

This scenario seems to happen often when coaches don't know how many outs there are, and batters are taught to run on dropped third strike no matter what. It has happened several times in our 10U games and have never seen interference called.

The "entitled to" is a change in wording for this year and as yet we have not received word on if the way this has been called in the past is to change or not. I just caught the change in wording a few days ago and nothing has been mentioned about the change in several clinics I have been to this year.

 

[MTR]

I see some grey area here. The rule you are referring to is:. ASA 8 - Section 7 - P under Note:

"A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a batter-runner who is entitled to run on the dropped third strike rule."

"Entitled" is a key word here. She should have been out and is therefore not "entitled" to run to first. I do agree the running to second and the second throw should be interference. Though I don't see anything wrong with a batter running to first on dropped third strike no matter the scenario.

This scenario seems to happen often when coaches don't know how many outs there are, and batters are taught to run on dropped third strike no matter what. It has happened several times in our 10U games and have never seen interference called.

Don't read too much into this slight change since it would negate the need for the rule since any runner who would be entitled to run to first would not be retired attempting to draw a throw.