Dropped third strike situation

[oldtimer]

15u travel. Official BB Rules.

Situation: First base occupied at time of pitch, less than 2 outs

R1 stealing, third strike is dropped, BR runs to first (though he was out because first was occupied at time of pitch). Catcher throws to first.

As BR nears first base--fully in the base line, not in the running lane-- catcher's throw bounces off the back of BR's helmet and bounces down the RF line. Play continues, as R1 crosses the plate ahead of a throw home.

Umpires called the BR out (easy call) and returned R1 to second base (head-scratcher). Right call?

[NovaScotiaBlue]

Umpires called the BR out (easy call) and returned R1 to second base (head-scratcher). Right call?

I would not have put the runner back...unless you are calling interference on the batter/runner. I look at this play and ask, Who screwed up??? The defence. They didn't need to throw the ball to 1st as the batter was out (Did PU do his job to sell the out?? not that it really matters) In putting the runner back you reward them by taking away a run from the team that did nothing wrong

[Thunderheads]

Hang on ....I'm confused (I know, doesn't take much ) but ...

6.05 - c ...the batter is out w/ less than two outs and first occupied (which it is in the op) ...TOP sitch ..yes?

If yes, ..that said, ...I'd score the runner , and BR is out, because when he swung and missed, he was out. Run would score because the ball was never dead ... (wrong terminology) but, you get the gist

Again, ...PU should have SOLD it big-time

So , basically, I agree w/ Scotia! :(

Edited October 5, 2010 by Thunderheads

[ukce1861]

I think I've got a double play. The BR is out on the K. R1 is out on interference by a retired teammate. Him running to first base isn't the interference, but him deflecting the ball by being out of the running lane is. :smachhead:

[Thunderheads]

I think I've got a double play. The BR is out on the K. R1 is out on interference by a retired teammate. Him running to first base isn't the interference, but him deflecting the ball by being out of the running lane is.

Maybe, ...but the OP says ... "fully in the baseline" .......

[ukce1861]

Maybe, ...but the OP says ... "fully in the baseline" .......

I took "in the baseline" to mean in fair territory.

--fully in the base line, not in the running lane--

[Thunderheads]

I took "in the baseline" to mean in fair territory.

Understood, I saw that too ....it's as if he's saying, he was right on the baseline itself but not "inside" the running lane ....

[JaxRolo]

Understood, I saw that too ....it's as if he's saying, he was right on the baseline itself but not "inside" the running lane ....

I read it this way also. But being on the baseline is being in the running lane. Right?

[ukce1861]

But being on the baseline is being in the running lane. Right?

Yes.

Y'all could be right. I assumed there was a deliberate contrast between being in the baseline and being in the running lane, which I took to mean he was not where he was supposed to be. Assumptions can be dangerous...

[jjb]

OK, what am I missing here? After the strikeout, the only runner in play is R1: and he's on his way to 2nd. But, for no apparent reason, the catcher throws to F3. How do we get somebody interfering with a fielder who has no play on anyone?

I've got nothing: play on. The catcher screwed up and threw to the wrong base.

[oldtimer]

I'm the original poster. Please assume that the BR going to first was running in a location where he normally would be called for interference. In the example given, can you call interference on the catcher when he doesn't have a play on the runner?

[Ros@]

OK, what am I missing here? After the strikeout, the only runner in play is R1: and he's on his way to 2nd. But, for no apparent reason, the catcher throws to F3. How do we get somebody interfering with a fielder who has no play on anyone?

I've got nothing: play on. The catcher screwed up and threw to the wrong base.

That was my initial thought as well.... The only one who screwed up, in my opinion, was the cather.

[mstaylor]

I'm the original poster. Please assume that the BR going to first was running in a location where he normally would be called for interference. In the example given, can you call interference on the catcher when he doesn't have a play on the runner?

No, inteference on a thrown ball has to be intentional interference hindering the defense from making a play. There is nothing about making a play they thought was there but wasn't. The BR was out on the K so the catcher should have been throwing to second or eating the ball. Let the run score.

[spiritumpa]

BR is out it is up to the defence to no the rules --catcher did not have to throw the ball--the BR was running in the running lane so score the run!!!!

[ukce1861]

I seem to be alone on this one which probably means I'm wrong, but hear me out on my reasoning. Based on 7.09(e) Comment, the batter-runner has the "right" to advance to first base even though he's out. But, if he's going to do so, he must do it legally (e.g. within the confines of the three-foot lane), which per the original poster, he was not. If the catcher chooses to make a play on the BR, he in entitled to the protections of 6.05(k), because (rightly or wrongly) the ball was being fielded to first base and the BR interfered with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Therefore, we have an immediate dead ball for interference. Since the BR has already been put out, he is hindering any following play being made on a runner (7.09(e)). What am I missing? I understand the catcher screwed up, but isn’t the BR obligated to advance legally?

[Rich Ives]

I seem to be alone on this one which probably means I'm wrong, but hear me out on my reasoning. Based on 7.09(e) Comment, the batter-runner has the "right" to advance to first base even though he's out. But, if he's going to do so, he must do it legally (e.g. within the confines of the three-foot lane), which per the original poster, he was not. If the catcher chooses to make a play on the BR, he in entitled to the protections of 6.05(k), because (rightly or wrongly) the ball was being fielded to first base and the BR interfered with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Therefore, we have an immediate dead ball for interference. Since the BR has already been put out, he is hindering any following play being made on a runner (7.09(e)). What am I missing? I understand the catcher screwed up, but isn’t the BR obligated to advance legally?

A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a runner. The BR is already out so there cannot be a play made on him. If there's no play, there's nothing to interfere with. The catcher screwed up - leave it at that.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

I seem to be alone on this one which probably means I'm wrong, but hear me out on my reasoning. Based on 7.09(e) Comment, the batter-runner has the "right" to advance to first base even though he's out. But, if he's going to do so, he must do it legally (e.g. within the confines of the three-foot lane), which per the original poster, he was not. If the catcher chooses to make a play on the BR, he in entitled to the protections of 6.05(k), because (rightly or wrongly) the ball was being fielded to first base and the BR interfered with the fielder taking the throw at first base. Therefore, we have an immediate dead ball for interference. Since the BR has already been put out, he is hindering any following play being made on a runner (7.09(e)). What am I missing? I understand the catcher screwed up, but isn’t the BR obligated to advance legally?

That might apply with 2 out and a dropped 3rd strike. The B/R is now legally able to advince to 1st. This is not the case in this situation.

[ukce1861]

A play is a legitimate attempt to retire a runner. The BR is already out so there cannot be a play made on him. If there's no play, there's nothing to interfere with. The catcher screwed up - leave it at that.

He's hindering a play on R1, who is not out. Not disputing, but where do you get your definition of "a play"?

[noumpere]

He's hindering a play on R1, who is not out. Not disputing, but where do you get your definition of "a play"?

That definition of "play" is in all the pro references.

It's not interference to keep running, and it's not interference if the retired runner gets hit with a throw.

[ukce1861]

That definition of "play" is in all the pro references.

Thanks. Those are next on my list of purchases...

It's not interference to keep running, and it's not interference if the retired runner gets hit with a throw.

Why isn't the runner obligated to legally (e.g. in the three-foot lane) advance to 1st? If he was not out on the K, he would be called out for interference and the ball would be dead, with runners sent back to the last legally obtained base, correct? Why is this situation different? Obviously you can't call him out, but he still interfered with potential plays on other runners.

[Rich Ives]

He's hindering a play on R1, who is not out.

Really? R1 was stealing 2B. The throw for a play on R1 would be to 2B.

OP: "R1 stealing, third strike is dropped"

[jjb]

OK, UC, let's walk through the play:

1. First base occupied, less than 2 out. Strike 3. Doesn't matter if it's caught or not, the BR's out: with me so far?

2. R1 is stealing: on his way to second base. Got it?

3. Catcher throws to first base. Hits the BR (who's already out on the strikeout). Let's say he's out of the lane. OK?

Now, who did the BR interfere with, and what did he prevent the defense from doing?

The answer is :nobody. The catcher's a dumb-ass, and threw to the wrong base.

[yawetag]

The answer is :nobody. The catcher's a dumb-ass, and threw to the wrong base.

This is exactly what I tell the coach, too. :bang:

[Dragon29]

I agree w/those posting BR out on the K; let everything else play out.

ukce - I think your question has been answered, but here's the simplest way to explain it:

If he was not out on the K, he would be called out for interference and the ball would be dead, with runners sent back to the last legally obtained base, correct? Why is this situation different? Obviously you can't call him out, but he still interfered with potential plays on other runners.

Because F2 isn't making a play.

[Astrosdawg07]

Ya unless the catcher was attempting to make a play on R1 I've got nothing. Now if he was in fact attempting a play on R1 (lets say he didn't take off for 2nd, just a big lead), and there was contact with the BR I've got R1 out as well!