I did find an ASA case play that was similar to the OP. In the case play it is initially called a ball and R1 leaves first, catcher immediately requests an appeal and base umpire calls the swing. Catcher throws to 2nd for the tag out on the runner advancing. In the case play it does say since the reversal of the call put the runner in jeapordy rule 10-3-C should be used and place the runner back at 1st. So there does seem to be case play support for returning the runner to 1st. Question is, in the case play the appeal was made in a timely manner while in the OP it is pretty clear the runners had all advanced and the umpire was moving to a new position prior to the appeal. So, does the delay in making the appeal change how the play should be ruled?
Your thoughts Please!!!!
- Thread starter mjhickm
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I did find an ASA case play that was similar to the OP. In the case play it is initially called a ball and R1 leaves first, catcher immediately requests an appeal and base umpire calls the swing. Catcher throws to 2nd for the tag out on the runner advancing. In the case play it does say since the reversal of the call put the runner in jeapordy rule 10-3-C should be used and place the runner back at 1st. So there does seem to be case play support for returning the runner to 1st. Question is, in the case play the appeal was made in a timely manner while in the OP it is pretty clear the runners had all advanced and the umpire was moving to a new position prior to the appeal. So, does the delay in making the appeal change how the play should be ruled?
- Nov 29, 2009
- 2,973
- 83
So what you're saying is every time there is a walk with a runner on 1st and two umpires the defense should throw the ball down to 2nd and tag the advancing runner even though the HP umpire had made the ball four call allowing the runner to advance without liability of being put out? Just in case there is a reversal of the call.
Now's lets flip the situation. Ball four called by the HP umpire. The defense alertly throws the ball down to 2nd base and tags the advancing runner before she gets to the base. The HP ump asks the FU for help and the FU indicates the batter did not hold up in time and the batter is called for a strike making it strike three retiring the batter instead of the walk indicated by the HP umpire. Now there are two outs charged to the offense.
I'm confused. Should the defense or the offense be put at a disadvantage due to a reversal of call?
Last edited:
This raises a good point for discussion and consideration.
I did some digging and found an ASA case play that is almost identical to this play. (My case book is a few years old and I'm not positive if this ruling is still there. It was under the section for rule 10.)
To paraphrase the case play:
Runner on first base. Batter has 3-2 count. Next pitch is called a ball as the batter tries to check her swing. R1 begins trotting to second as batter-runner starts for first base. Catcher immediately requests help on the check swing. PU asks BU and BU calls it a strike.
Catcher then throws ball to second base and R1- who was slowly jogging to the base, thinking that she was free to advance without being put out- is tagged out.
The case play ruling was that the reversed/delayed call put R1 in jeopardy (ie: she would not have been slowly jogging to second base if the pitch had been originally called a strike). The ruling said to negate the out and put R1 back on first base.
Could it not be argued that, in the play presented in this thread, the defense was put in jeopardy? Did the reversed/delayed call prevent their opportunity to play on R1 and essentially award her a free base?
(After posting, I see that Comp found the same case play)
Last edited:
thank you bretman...yes i think it could be argued that both sides were put in jeopardy at some point. my opinion is that putting the runner back on first would be the most amicable thing to do and certainly the most appropriate thing to do considering rule 10-3-c. the case plays you presented i think support this..thanks again for your research. its much appreciated
My question I posted above, does the defense have some responsibility to make the check swing appeal in a timely manner? As described in the OP, it appears the advance of both runners had long since completed and the BU was moving to the C position before the defense ever appealed the check swing.
No, I didn't say that...you did!
If the catcher waits so long to ask the plate umpire to check with his partner, long enough that R1 has already made it all the way down to second base, maybe you could say that the defense put themselves in jeopardy. If the catcher thought that the batter had swung, why didn't she ask for the appeal right away?
I guess what I'm saying is whether or not the defense was put in jeopardy might hinge on how timely the appeal was made.
This is one of those plays that is a known potential trouble maker. I've seen it cause confusion in Major League Baseball games, so you can imagine the confusion it might cause in a youth softball game. And, yes, I have seen MLB catchers immediately ask for the check swing appeal and then throw to second, all in one motion and before the base umpire even has a chance to render his decision, and get the out at second base. Now that's what you call "being aware of the situation"!
Last edited:
In baseball umpires are trained to ask for the appeal immediately ( without even being asked to) in this type of situation.
As to 10-3-C--the 2012 rule book no longer has the case play which illustrates this situation.
One can argue that it only applies to umpire error, as opposed to a reversal of a checked swing appeal.
After all, there must be a reason as to why the case play was removed.
In the OP, I'm putting the runner back on first.
There is any number of reasons why the request for help could have been delayed. Perhaps PU is waitning for BU to stop moving before he makes the request, maybe the catcher hd to think about it for a bit, maybe the coach had to remind her to ask the PU....etc.
This is a reversal of an umpires call that places a team in jeopardy. Had the check swing been called a strike for strike three, it's almost a certainty that the runner on first would have remained at first. By reversing the original call of ball four to strike three, the defense has been placed in jeopardy by having a runner 60 feet closer to home than she would have been if the call had been strike three in the first place.
There is any number of reasons why the request for help could have been delayed. Perhaps PU is waitning for BU to stop moving before he makes the request, maybe the catcher hd to think about it for a bit, maybe the coach had to remind her to ask the PU....etc.
This is a reversal of an umpires call that places a team in jeopardy. Had the check swing been called a strike for strike three, it's almost a certainty that the runner on first would have remained at first. By reversing the original call of ball four to strike three, the defense has been placed in jeopardy by having a runner 60 feet closer to home than she would have been if the call had been strike three in the first place.
The sample play I mentioned isn't from the rule book. It's from the ASA case book, a separate publication.
On the subject of 10-3-C:
- The rule says that the plate umpire "may" rectify a situation where a delayed or reversed call puts either team in jeopardy. There's nothing that says he "must" do anything. Any decision to alter the play outcome is entirely at the umpire's discretion. He may decide to do nothing.
- When an adjustment is made under 10-3-C, the course of action is entirely up to the umpire's judgment and discretion. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. It can depend on the circumstances surrounding the play. So, there's no rule that says on this play the runner is automatically put back on first. It's whatever the umpire thinks is reasonable.
- Items under rule 10 are not considered to be "playing rules". They are guidelines for umpires and, as such, are not subject to protest.
I interpret that "may" as being "empowered." If the umpire determines the situation warrants being rectified and there is a fair remedy, they have a responsibility to do it.
Even with the late appeal, I'd expect the runner to be returned to 1B if their advance was strictly based on the original call. If they were running on the pitch, I'd expect the umpire to use their best judgement on whether to leave them on 2B or return them to 1B.
