Put Out Stealing or Advance on Walk

[BretMan]

I'm still trying to figure out how a plate umpire calls the play at third base BEFORE calling the pitch.

How do you see the pitch if you're looking at third base?

If you saw the pitch, and you knew it was ball four, why would you even make a call at third?

 

[MTR]

This can be a tough call when there's only 1 ump, but if the ump saw the runner leave before the pitch, then that' s a different call. It's an immediate dead ball, the runner is out, and the pitch doesn't count.

You're right, it is a different call, but I see no indication that was the case in the OP

 

[VA Chris]

I'm still trying to figure out how a plate umpire calls the play at third base BEFORE calling the pitch.

How do you see the pitch if you're looking at third base?

If you saw the pitch, and you knew it was ball four, why would you even make a call at third?

Let me try and shed some light on my clarification attempting to clarify the original clarification attempt at clarity

1) Good point, not sure how this actually fired off. The pitch reached my DD at catcher. She saw the girl running hard for 3rd and gunned it down to the base. HU called runner out and then the walk question came into play.

2) HU must have seen enough of the pitch to deem it a ball. I assume that he lost track of the count and followed what he thought was a steal attempt. (It would have been the right call on 3rd as my DD drilled the ball right to the spot)

3) HU was decent but a bit shaky. For the record, I thought he did a decent job but did miss some calls both ways.

Good questions. I was not coaching just spectating, so I just got to relax and enjoy a good day on the diamond.

 

[Ajaywill]

It's ball four. Runners are forced to advance. How can the runner be out for stealing?

Get this on uncaught third strike with 1B occupied less than two out a lot. "But it wasn't occupied she was stealing 2nd, blue!" Ugh!

....So you're saying first base wasn't occupied at the time of the pitch? If that's the case, then the runner must have left the base prior to the pitch and she would be out with no pitch....is that what you are asking for?????

 

[MT 73]

....So you're saying first base wasn't occupied at the time of the pitch? If that's the case, then the runner must have left the base prior to the pitch and she would be out with no pitch....is that what you are asking for?????

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I assume Umpireernie is referring to:
The runner who is on first was stealing on the release of the pitch.
And there were less than two outs.
The batter struck out but the catcher did not catch the ball in flight.
Quite often people feel that if the runner at first is stealing while the pitch is on the way that this means that first base in no longer considered to be occupied --meaning that with less than 2 outs the batter is now entitled to attempt to reach first base.
For the record this is not the case--first base is deemed occupied from the time of pitch.

 

[Cowdogz]

Quite often people feel that if the runner at first is stealing while the pitch is on the way that this means that first base in no longer considered to be occupied

By that logic, on a run-and-hit play there would no longer be a force out at 2nd.

 

[Ajaywill]

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I assume Umpireernie is referring to:
The runner who is on first was stealing on the release of the pitch.
And there were less than two outs.
The batter struck out but the catcher did not catch the ball in flight.
Quite often people feel that if the runner at first is stealing while the pitch is on the way that this means that first base in no longer considered to be occupied --meaning that with less than 2 outs the batter is now entitled to attempt to reach first base.
For the record this is not the case--first base is deemed occupied from the time of pitch.

MT...I know exactly what UmpireErnie was referring to. The little smilie face at the end of my post was meant to indicate sarcasm....

 

[Umpireernie]

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I assume Umpireernie is referring to:
The runner who is on first was stealing on the release of the pitch.
And there were less than two outs.
The batter struck out but the catcher did not catch the ball in flight.
Quite often people feel that if the runner at first is stealing while the pitch is on the way that this means that first base in no longer considered to be occupied --meaning that with less than 2 outs the batter is now entitled to attempt to reach first base.
For the record this is not the case--first base is deemed occupied from the time of pitch.

Exactly!

AJ totally go that, reply was a sarcastic reply to be made to those who try to say in this sitch that 1B was not occupied. "Oh ok so we have runner from 1B out and your batter is still up with two strikes!

 

[MT 73]

By that logic, on a run-and-hit play there would no longer be a force out at 2nd.

Not at all.
A force play is dependent upon the batter becoming a runner--nothing to do at all with first base being occupied.
Smiley inserted just in case of sarcasm...

 

[Cowdogz]

A force play is dependent upon the batter becoming a runner--nothing to do at all with first base being occupied.

The runner has left first base, therefore it is unoccupied. How can there be a force play at 2B if 1B is unoccupied?

Think of all the other possibilities: Runner takes off for second, hitter pops out to short. The runner can't be doubled off at first! ("Hey, she was already stealing, so the popout doesn't matter!")

I like these new rules.