Runners under a "decoy" rule

[SkipperD]

Let's say there are no outs and a Runner on first base. The Batter strikes out but there is a DTS. Clearly the batter is out but attempts to run to first, drawing a throw from the catcher. The Runner at first safely advances to second base. Shouldn't the runner, now safely on second, be forced to go back to first. (For the sake of argument, the ball simply dropped to the ground, and in the umpires view, the catcher "could" have thrown out the runner going to 2nd.

My real question is "Is there such a thing as a "decoy" rule (a runner continuing to run to confuse the defense and perhaps draw a throw away from the other runners).

 

[Comp]

The defense should know the game situation and realize no throw is needed to retire the batter, and instead go for the stealing runner going to 2nd. The rules state running on a dropped third strike is not in itself interference.

 

[MTR]

Let's say there are no outs and a Runner on first base. The Batter strikes out but there is a DTS. Clearly the batter is out but attempts to run to first, drawing a throw from the catcher. The Runner at first safely advances to second base. Shouldn't the runner, now safely on second, be forced to go back to first. (For the sake of argument, the ball simply dropped to the ground, and in the umpires view, the catcher "could" have thrown out the runner going to 2nd.

My real question is "Is there such a thing as a "decoy" rule (a runner continuing to run to confuse the defense and perhaps draw a throw away from the other runners).

No, there is no such thing as a decoy rule. Most rule sets clearly note that running on a DTS when not available is not a form of interference. The defense is responsible for knowing the game situation and should be aware that the batter may not attempt to advance on that play.

This is just a DMC.

 

[Coach Fastpitch]

We actually had two (12U) strike out /caught stealing this weekend because the runners on base didn't know the rule that they didn't have to advance on a strike three in the dirt, less than two outs. We turned the double plays

 

[CoogansBluff]

There is no rule against it.

However, I do think it's fair to ask why there isn't.

Why should a batter who has struck out be allowed to run to first base and continue to affect the game? Once out, shouldn't a runner have no rights except to return to the dugout in a way that doesn't hinder the defense?

 

[Comp]

Shouldnt the defense be smart enough to know they have no reason to try and put that batter out? Its not that hard, less than 2 outs, 1st base occupied at time of pitch, no throw needed.

 

[Hit by the Pitch]

Shouldnt the defense be smart enough to know they have no reason to try and put that batter out? Its not that hard, less than 2 outs, 1st base occupied at time of pitch, no throw needed.

Last year was the first time DD played the dropped third strike rule, it was a real mess at the beginning but for the most part the Players figured it out.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Shouldnt the defense be smart enough to know they have no reason to try and put that batter out? Its not that hard, less than 2 outs, 1st base occupied at time of pitch, no throw needed.

I agree that it's not that hard, and I'm not complaining about the rule. I'm just asking from a philosophical point of view. Rules aside, it is not logical to me that a player who is out can continue to play an active role in influencing the game on the field. If I were Abner Doubleday, I would've addressed this by now. But it is what it is.

 

[Greenmonsters]

I agree that it's not that hard, and I'm not complaining about the rule. I'm just asking from a philosophical point of view. Rules aside, it is not logical to me that a player who is out can continue to play an active role in influencing the game on the field. If I were Abner Doubleday, I would've addressed this by now. But it is what it is.

When Abner DD played, the pitcher's objective was to let the batters hit the ball.

 

[bhblue]

Rules aside, it is not logical to me that a player who is out can continue to play an active role in influencing the game on the field.

Logically, it doesn't make sense to exempt the, now retired, batter from the retired runner INT rule. Shouldn't she be just as responsible for knowing the rule?

Just as it doesn't make sense to allow batters who think it's ball 4 to head to 1st without penalty, but penalize the defense when a catcher, wrongly assuming strike 3, throws the ball to a base when the bases are empty.

Here's one more: Why is a delayed dead ball signaled for obstruction and a dead ball signaled for interference? Particularly in college since leaving early is DDB to allow the defense the possibility to turn a double play. Why not give them the same opportunity if interfered with?