Stepped on a dropped third strike

[PGSAKen]

Runners first step is on the plate.....must have short legs lol.

Seriously Comp has the call correctly. To boot batter is out of box and ball hits them while defender is attempting to make play. Out either way you look at it.

 

[Softball scholar]

Digging up this old thread, as this scenario happened to us in rec league championship game. We lost 3-4 and the 4th run got started on a strike out but catcher dropped the ball. It bounced out of catchers glove and went a little forward and landed around the plate. The batter/runner took a step towards the dugout, but when she realized the ball was dropped, she ran towards first and kicked the ball to the fence just before our catcher was about to pick it up. We had no chance to get her out after she kicked the ball 30 feet against the fence. We argued the call, but the ump said she was safe because in his opinion she didn't kick the ball intentionally.

League is based on ASA rules, and if ASA rule 8-2-F-6 is correct as written, we got screwed. Can any umpires confirm that this was the wrong call?

Also, Question number 2 for umpire call in this game concerning situation in this game. Note these games are timed at one hour and a half (not drop dead). Above situation happened in the bottom of the 6th. We were right at the time limit. We have two outs and our pitcher throws strike three and gets the third out. We thought we made it to the top of 7th and the top of lineup is up. Defense runs to the dug out and were ready to bat, and the umpire comes over and says his timer went off while pitcher was throwing the last pitch of the strike out, so we lose. Nobody even heard the timer. I know its a judgement call if timer went off before the strike out, but doesn't it look bad when you call somebody out, then say sorry the timer went off before I made the call. Rough inning.

 

[Comp]

Batter runner cannot interfere with a dropped 3rd strike, so yes, if she kicked the ball away she is guilty of interference. The word intentional was removed from the interference rules a long time ago. I think the only section of interference that does mention intentional is when a batted ball has been deflected. When that happens, then the runner must do something intentional to interfere.

As for the timer, if time expired it expired. Personally what I do in situations where it has gone off literally during the last pitch or play I will let the timer keep running. Mine beeps several times and then instead of counting down it starts counting up to show the amount of time that has elapsed since the timer went off. That way I can show the coaches if questioned how long ago the timer went off.

 

[Umpire]

Even though ASA removed the word "intentionally" from many areas of interference, oddly enough they kept it in their interpretation. If the runner knows they are going to interfere, they must avoid doing so. However, they still are not required to have eyes in the back of their heads. Always consider who caused the problem. The defense cannot and shall not be rewarded with an interference call and and out if they create the problem. Common sense still applies.

As for the timer issue, I have had time expire during a last at bat. People would think it's impossible but with thousands of timed games, it's bound to happen. I've even had a fly ball with two outs and the clock expire with the ball in the air. Not folklore either. If you do enough games, it's going to occur.

I don't put the timer on the fence though. I've seen them hit with foul balls and break. It also encourages coaches and other to leave the dugout, which is the opposite of what they ought to be doing. I've even seen a spectator stop the timer that was on the backstop. Needless to say he missed the rest of the tournament.

 

[MTR]

Even though ASA removed the word "intentionally" from many areas of interference, oddly enough they kept it in their interpretation. If the runner knows they are going to interfere, they must avoid doing so. However, they still are not required to have eyes in the back of their heads. Always consider who caused the problem. The defense cannot and shall not be rewarded with an interference call and and out if they create the problem. Common sense still applies.

Not true. ASA gives, nor did they in the past, no consideration for lack of intent when it comes to the third strike rule. When a rule change to accommodate the lack of intent, it received no support in any of the committees. And, ironically, the "eyes in the back of their head" was one of the selling points trying to get the rule changed.

 

[BretMan]

I dug back through my old ASA rule books, to back before "intent" was removed from most of the interference rules. Even back then, the rule reads the same as it does today. "Intent" wasn't in the rule then and it's not in the rule now. So, this wasn't one of the rules affected when "intent" was removed from many of the interference rules.

When it comes to interfering with an uncaught third strike, most softball rule sets are downright Draconian. The batter-runner has a responsibility to not interfere, intentionally or not, and whether the defense misplayed the ball or not. In contrast, most baseball rule sets allow the umpire to determine intent and the batter-runner gets a break.

Personal opinion here: I prefer the baseball way of calling this. The old argument is that it's impossible for an umpire to be a mind reader and know for sure what a player's intent might be. Yet there are plenty other rules that require us to judge intent and we somehow muddle through all those.

 

[Doug Romrell]

I sure hate the dropped third strike rule.

 

[MTR]

I dug back through my old ASA rule books, to back before "intent" was removed from most of the interference rules. Even back then, the rule reads the same as it does today. "Intent" wasn't in the rule then and it's not in the rule now. So, this wasn't one of the rules affected when "intent" was removed from many of the interference rules.

When it comes to interfering with an uncaught third strike, most softball rule sets are downright Draconian. The batter-runner has a responsibility to not interfere, intentionally or not, and whether the defense misplayed the ball or not. In contrast, most baseball rule sets allow the umpire to determine intent and the batter-runner gets a break.

It is interesting that in this situation, people want to accuse the defense of creating the situation by not controlling the ball. However, no one wants to blame the batter for actually allowing the pitch to become the 3rd strike.

Personal opinion here: I prefer the baseball way of calling this. The old argument is that it's impossible for an umpire to be a mind reader and know for sure what a player's intent might be. Yet there are plenty other rules that require us to judge intent and we somehow muddle through all those.

I prefer the intent to be part of the rule, but that mind-reading argument is a sad excuse for weak umpiring. Any decent umpire who knows the game can identify a player's action as intentional, or not.

 

[CJ D]

It is interesting that in this situation, people want to accuse the defense of creating the situation by not controlling the ball. However, no one wants to blame the batter for actually allowing the pitch to become the 3rd strike.



I prefer the intent to be part of the rule, but that mind-reading argument is a sad excuse for weak umpiring. Any decent umpire who knows the game can identify a player's action as intentional, or not.

On the lines of this...dropped 3rd strike, batter runner takes off to first...catcher picks up ball, and in an attempt to throw to the base, plunks the runner in the back running inside the baseline...wouldn't the call be out? Provided the other criteria be met such as a good throw to the bag, etc. Why wouldn't it be on the defense in this situation too for "creating the problem"?

 

[Softball scholar]

Even though ASA removed the word "intentionally" from many areas of interference, oddly enough they kept it in their interpretation. If the runner knows they are going to interfere, they must avoid doing so. However, they still are not required to have eyes in the back of their heads. Always consider who caused the problem. The defense cannot and shall not be rewarded with an interference call and and out if they create the problem. Common sense still applies.

As for the timer issue, I have had time expire during a last at bat. People would think it's impossible but with thousands of timed games, it's bound to happen. I've even had a fly ball with two outs and the clock expire with the ball in the air. Not folklore either. If you do enough games, it's going to occur.

I don't put the timer on the fence though. I've seen them hit with foul balls and break. It also encourages coaches and other to leave the dugout, which is the opposite of what they ought to be doing. I've even seen a spectator stop the timer that was on the backstop. Needless to say he missed the rest of the tournament.

Just curious on the timing issue when the flyball was in the air when the timer went off. Did you call the girl out, or did you not make a call and say the game was over?

In our case the umpire called strike 3, then the whole team excitedly ran into the dugout. We're getting ready to bat, and then the ump yells game over. Why did he call strike three if the timer was going off and the game was over. And if he made a reflex call, then he immediately should of said the game was over instead of waiting 30 seconds.

Also, whats the rule when timer goes off during a play. Is the game over during the play or is like in football or basketball at the end of the play? Also in hindsight, the other team had a minor injury in the middle of the game. Im estimating it took two minutes out of the game for the girl to get back into the game. If we were savvy enough to think of that, would this have been a valid argument to extend the game two minutes. I guess all we needed was less than a second.