Batter thinks he's walked

[zoops]

I think I've seen  a similar situation to this on here before but couldn't find it...3-0 count, R2, R3.  Inside pitch called a strike loudly by umpire but is muffed by the catcher and trickles away enough that R3 comes home and R2 goes to 3rd.  The batter thinks that it is ball 4 and takes off to first immediately and rounds 1st on his way to second.  Defense tries to make a play on him and in the meantime R2 (who's now on 3rd) goes home.  Is this nothing, is it up to the defense to know what the situation is?  FED rules if that matters.  

[Replacematt]

Yep. Defense gets what's coming to them.

[BigUmpire]

Could be the ball 3 walk trick play.

Works great!

[blue23ll]

The 'dropped 2nd strike' play works pretty well too, with a runner on 3rd.

[zoops]

Is there anything where you could call someone out on this, say if the offense was doing this often?

[maven]

The only potential infraction I see is violation of the batters box rule. Not that I would call it...

[blue23ll]

When that "dropped 2nd strike" play happened the DC was certain it was illegal. I sent him back to the bench with a rule book assignment....

[cyclonehokiece]

When that "dropped 2nd strike" play happened the DC was certain it was illegal. I sent him back to the bench with a rule book assignment....

How did he score on the assignment?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soupcan]

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

[Lala]

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Im sure you could pull this out if you really wanted to and knew for a fact that it was intentional.  But for high school players, is it too much to ask that they know the count and the number of outs?

[noumpere]

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Yes -- that's why I always get an out when the offense tries the old "walk-off" play.

 

And when the defense fakes the throw to second on the R1-R3 steal?  That's clearly OBS.

 

La me.

[maven]

 

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Yes -- that's why I always get an out when the offense tries the old "walk-off" play.

 

And when the defense fakes the throw to second on the R1-R3 steal?  That's clearly OBS.

 

La me.

 

Not everyone here will know whether you're serious (or the significance of "La me," which CC usually spelled, "Lah" IIRC...).

[soupcan]

 

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Yes -- that's why I always get an out when the offense tries the old "walk-off" play.

 

And when the defense fakes the throw to second on the R1-R3 steal?  That's clearly OBS.

 

La me.

 

Well, if a coach were sent to the dugout with a rulebook assignment and came back with this, what would be your explanation?

[blue23ll]

 

 

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Yes -- that's why I always get an out when the offense tries the old "walk-off" play.

 

And when the defense fakes the throw to second on the R1-R3 steal?  That's clearly OBS.

 

La me.

 

Well, if a coach were sent to the dugout with a rulebook assignment and came back with this, what would be your explanation?

 

They would need to stay after class for tutoring.

[Replacematt]

Offensive interference? "an act... which... confuses any fielder attempting to make a play."?

Yes -- that's why I always get an out when the offense tries the old "walk-off" play.

 

And when the defense fakes the throw to second on the R1-R3 steal?  That's clearly OBS.

 

La me.

Not everyone here will know whether you're serious (or the significance of "La me," which CC usually spelled, "Lah" IIRC...).

I think that was Tim, not Carl. I could be wrong, though.

[soupcan]

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

[Replacematt]

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

[SoCal Lurker]

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

[Replacematt]

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs.

[SoCal Lurker]

 

 

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

 

Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs.

 

 

Of course it "directely affected the defense."  None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. 

 

This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected.  And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard.  (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.)  The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic."  But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out.

[zoops]

A similar play from Florida State-Jacksonville:  Play #10...  http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10802815

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

 

Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs.

 

 

Of course it "directely affected the defense."  None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. 

 

This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected.  And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard.  (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.)  The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic."  But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out.

 

Nope. The offense indirectly affected the defense. Everything the defense did was their own doing.

[SoCal Lurker]

 

 

 

 

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

 

Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs.

 

 

Of course it "directely affected the defense."  None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. 

 

This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected.  And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard.  (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.)  The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic."  But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out.

 

Nope. The offense indirectly affected the defense. Everything the defense did was their own doing.

 

 

This is silly, meaningless, and inaccurate linquistic quibbling.  "Affect" means to "produce an effect upon," which is exactly what the ruse did.  It produced exactly the effect the offense was trying to create.  This isn't OK because it was somehow "indirect," it is OK because the defense is charged with knowing the situation and not getting tricked.  Relying on the linguistic game is unhelpful because it does not provide any useful guidance in determining what is or is not permissible.  (No different in terms of how "direct" the effect is than imitating the base coach -- no less "direct," as each is a calculated behavior to mislead the opponent.  The difference is one we consider to be within the spirt of the game, and the other we don't.)

[Replacematt]

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone care to offer an explanation as to why this is not offensive interference (without the condescension)?

 

 

Because the offense didn't do anything. The defense did it to themselves.

 

Well, only sort of -- the runing to first caused the confusion.  But I think thei ultimate answer is that, as in every game, certain things are considered fair forms of deception, and others aren't.  Even though the offense tried to create confusion, the defense won't be susceptible to it if it's paying attention.

 

Nothing the offense did directly affected the defense. The play started with a two-ball count. No matter what happened, there couldn't have been a walk. the defense confused themselves by not paying attention to a black-and-white situation. The difference between this and, say, defensive verbal obstruction by imitating a base coach is that there is a variable at play in that situation--not so with regard to count or outs.

 

 

Of course it "directely affected the defense."  None of the stupidity and confsuion by the defense would have happened if they were not directly affected by the batter improperly going to first. 

 

This is not an issue of whether they were affected, but of whether they were unfairly affected.  And the Game has decided that since everyone should know the count and number of outs, no one can be unfairly affected by behavior that tries to trick them in that regard.  (And, indeed, an alert defense gets an easy out in this situation, so the "trick" is done only with risk.)  The ethos of the Game, in this situation, say "shame on you for being fooled," rather than "shame on you for a chickensh!t tactic."  But that is not the same thing as saying that ruse did not directly affect the defense -- if it hadn't directly affected them by fooling them into confusion, they would have got the easy out.

 

Nope. The offense indirectly affected the defense. Everything the defense did was their own doing.

 

 

This is silly, meaningless, and inaccurate linquistic quibbling.  "Affect" means to "produce an effect upon," which is exactly what the ruse did.  It produced exactly the effect the offense was trying to create.  This isn't OK because it was somehow "indirect," it is OK because the defense is charged with knowing the situation and not getting tricked.  Relying on the linguistic game is unhelpful because it does not provide any useful guidance in determining what is or is not permissible.  (No different in terms of how "direct" the effect is than imitating the base coach -- no less "direct," as each is a calculated behavior to mislead the opponent.  The difference is one we consider to be within the spirt of the game, and the other we don't.)

 

 

Well, you're wrong.

 

There is a difference (which I have already pointed out.) There is no way the offense can replicate a situation requiring defensive action in the OP. In your counterexample, they are replicating a situation, and creating a direct effect.

 

In short, what happened in the OP is all in the defense's head; in your example, it's not. Indirect vs. direct effects play a role in determining the legality of an action. Remember, this is FED. Traditional elements don't apply--but if you use the guideline I have mentioned, you will find that you will be matching the intent of their rules.

[MUAump2]

If the defense would have been paying attention to the situation, they would have known it wasn't a dropped 3rd strike, so its on them for not knowing the situation.