Strike 2 = out?

[Thunderheads]

my ears are bleeding from the announcers, but .........discuss ......... what happened here

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=30554215&topic_id=9780550

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30554215&topic_id=9780550

[Umpire in Chief]

As umpires we have no obligation to tell him to get back in the box. We're not there to coach, assist or otherwise tell the players and coaches what to do. That's there responsibility at this level. I might tell a batter that is only 2 strikes at a 12 y/o game, but that's about as high up as I'd go.

[noumpere]

I would bring him back at all levels I do (which for the record is more than 12 y/o).  Maybe the umpire thought he missed a pitch or something.  very strange.

[Concernedcitizen2]

So are you saying it's voluntary abandonment (or whatever the correct term is) similar to a batter going back into the dugout on a dropped third strike even if he was never tagged?  And therefore the fact that he enters the dugout means he's out?

[zoops]

Had it happen a couple years ago where both teams ran off the field after the 2nd out.  I think the scoreboard erroneously had it as the 3rd out and no one noticed - including the umpires (which included me).  Didn't even hear about it until the next day.  I imagine that if you know it's not the 3rd out you should notify someone?  Or do you go with the abandonment if there are runners on base and get the 3rd out that way?  

[24sdad]

Are we going to allow a batter to trot on down to first base following ball three if neither team objects?  How about the dummy that remains in the box following ball four - tell him nothing and just keep batting?  Same principle applies here when a batter believes he struck out on strike two...tell him to get his azz back in the box and lets play.  We are the one's tasked with ensuring neither team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules.  Grabbing an out on strike two or getting first base on ball three is certainly not intended by the rules.

 

Would love to hear Jim Wolf's (one of my favs) thoughts on what happened. 

[KLAH316]

If you watch the video closely, Wolf uses his 2 fingers (Index/MIddle) on his right hand to indicate the swinging strike was in fact "Strike 2".  He knew darn well it was only Strike 2.

[Rich Ives]

There are times when the umpire loses the count - even in MLB. One time in MLB this year they called the scorer to get the correct count. Don't assume it's just players that mess up.

 

Fix it!

[Umpire in Chief]

Are we going to allow a batter to trot on down to first base following ball three if neither team objects?  How about the dummy that remains in the box following ball four - tell him nothing and just keep batting?  Same principle applies here when a batter believes he struck out on strike two...tell him to get his azz back in the box and lets play.  We are the one's tasked with ensuring neither team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules.  Grabbing an out on strike two or getting first base on ball three is certainly not intended by the rules.

 

Would love to hear Jim Wolf's (one of my favs) thoughts on what happened. 

Very good points

[afaber12]

Are we going to allow a batter to trot on down to first base following ball three if neither team objects? How about the dummy that remains in the box following ball four - tell him nothing and just keep batting? Same principle applies here when a batter believes he struck out on strike two...tell him to get his azz back in the box and lets play. We are the one's tasked with ensuring neither team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Grabbing an out on strike two or getting first base on ball three is certainly not intended by the rules. Would love to hear Jim Wolf's (one of my favs) thoughts on what happened.

I think there's a difference this situation and the two you describe. Yes one team is being disadvantaged, but that team - or at least one of its players - is the one that made the mistake. Don't forget that there's at least 15+ players, plus a manager and a few coaches, none of whom told him to turn around and keep batting. The guy who doesn't walk on ball 4 could easily be waiting to hear the call because he missed it, and doesn't want to invite the wrath of a vengeful umpire and get a strike for going too soon. The guy who walks on ball 3 (or on 2-2 count as happened to me last weekend) is the closer equivalent, in my mind at least, and in that case the player making the mistake is gaining an advantage so needs to be corrected. In terms of whether to call the batter back or not, I think in MLB if no one in uniform for the team can count to 3, then I don't think the umpire should have to help them out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[24sdad]

 

Are we going to allow a batter to trot on down to first base following ball three if neither team objects? How about the dummy that remains in the box following ball four - tell him nothing and just keep batting? Same principle applies here when a batter believes he struck out on strike two...tell him to get his azz back in the box and lets play. We are the one's tasked with ensuring neither team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Grabbing an out on strike two or getting first base on ball three is certainly not intended by the rules.

Would love to hear Jim Wolf's (one of my favs) thoughts on what happened.

I think there's a difference this situation and the two you describe. 

In terms of whether to call the batter back or not, I think in MLB if no one in uniform for the team can count to 3, then I don't think the umpire should have to help them out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to just let the guy who thinks he is out on strike two continue to the dugout.  I love outs as much as the next guy.  But, a lot of times on the field the things we want to do are in conflict with the things we should do.

 

On taking first base on ball three and the umpire allows it- the offensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  On a batter staying in the box following ball four and the umpire allows it because the "batter can't count to four," - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  On a batter striking out on strike two because neither he nor his teammates "can count to three," and the umpire allows it - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  Even though in two of the three examples a player "screwed up," we have knowledge of it and the ability (and IMO the obligation) to correct it.

 

You are certainly free to do what you deem appropriate.  I am going to fix it.

[UMP45]

 

 

Are we going to allow a batter to trot on down to first base following ball three if neither team objects? How about the dummy that remains in the box following ball four - tell him nothing and just keep batting? Same principle applies here when a batter believes he struck out on strike two...tell him to get his azz back in the box and lets play. We are the one's tasked with ensuring neither team gains an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. Grabbing an out on strike two or getting first base on ball three is certainly not intended by the rules.

Would love to hear Jim Wolf's (one of my favs) thoughts on what happened.

I think there's a difference this situation and the two you describe. 

In terms of whether to call the batter back or not, I think in MLB if no one in uniform for the team can count to 3, then I don't think the umpire should have to help them out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to just let the guy who thinks he is out on strike two continue to the dugout.  I love outs as much as the next guy.  But, a lot of times on the field the things we want to do are in conflict with the things we should do.

 

On taking first base on ball three and the umpire allows it- the offensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  On a batter staying in the box following ball four and the umpire allows it because the "batter can't count to four," - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  On a batter striking out on strike two because neither he nor his teammates "can count to three," and the umpire allows it - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage.  Even though in two of the three examples a player "screwed up," we have knowledge of it and the ability (and IMO the obligation) to correct it.

 

You are certainly free to do what you deem appropriate.  I am going to fix it.

 

These are professional baseball players. The umpires are not there to baby sit. There is no vaccine for stupid!

[Texas Manny]

I could not find anything in the rules, PBUC Manual, JE Rules Index, or his Diamond Challenge for any mention or penalty for the batter abandoning his at bat, other than leaving the dirt circle after a dropped third strike ( 6.09B: Comment), which didn't apply here. Either everyone fell asleep at the switch, in one capacity or another, Mr. Wolf called "Strike Three!" using rule 6.02©, which isn't likely since there was no argument, or he called the player out for abandoning his at bat. But I couldn't find any reference for such abandonment ruling.

 

Strange indeed. I don't know what to make of it.

[hbk314]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30570203&topic_id=9780550

 

Same crew next game.

[24sdad]

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30570203&topic_id=9780550

 

Same crew next game.

 

Ed "the Babysitter" Hickox must have found his syringe for that vaccine.  The gall of him for calling the batter back to LEGALLY complete his at-bat.  Who does he think he is interjecting himself in the game like that?

[Jocko]

I say fix it. Just as any other call, GET IT RIGHT

[afaber12]

Has there been any clarification of what actually was called, and when it was called? Was it actually a strike out, abandonment, or simultaneous brain fart on everyone's part? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Concernedcitizen2]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/yankees-catcher-chris-stewart-strikes-only-two-strikes-090441756--mlb.html

[UMP45]

 

http://wapc.mlb.com/play?content_id=30570203&topic_id=9780550

 

Same crew next game.

 

Ed "the Babysitter" Hickox must have found his syringe for that vaccine.  The gall of him for calling the batter back to LEGALLY complete his at-bat.  Who does he think he is interjecting himself in the game like that?

 

Where or when does Ed call him back? Be careful if you want a battle of wits. Since you come unarmed!