Umpire error, correction

[Mike Fincher]

One out, runner on third, one ball and two strikes on batter. Pitch is low and outside, the batter swings and catcher clearly catches the ball without it touching the ground.

After catching the ball, the catcher takes 3 steps in front of home plate. All runners are stopped. The batter takes 2 steps toward first base and stops. The home plate umpire signals safe and indicates the previously pitched ball was dropped by the catcher. The catcher throws to first and the batter is retired. The runner on third scored on the throw to first.

The home plate umpire and the base umpires confer. They indicate the ball was caught by the catcher and the umpire was incorrect in his signaling safe and should be scored as a strike out, not a dropped 3rd strike put out. They did not bring the runner that scored back to third, allowing the run to score. How do you handle this situation?

[Velho]

On 4/7/2025 at 10:37 AM, Mike Fincher said:

The home plate umpire and the base umpires confer. They indicate the ball was caught by the catcher and the umpire was incorrect in his signaling safe and should be scored as a strike out, not a dropped 3rd strike put out. They did not bring the runner that scored back to third, allowing the run to score.

That can be frustrating to everyone involved.

A few questions / observations:

- How do we know they ruled it a caught 3rd strike? (not saying they didn't but am trying to piece together the situation).

- Did the batter ever run to first? Did the catcher try to tag the batter?

- Note that it's scored a strike out either way.

[beerguy55]

Well, I would ask why they conferred then?

It doesn't matter, in the end, to the umpire, if the batter was out at the plate, or out at first.  Doesn't matter to the batter either.

It doesn't even matter, much, from a scorekeeping perspective...it's still a K...it just changes the credited putout from F3 to F2.

The only reason to confer would be to determine what happens with the run that scored, and I would ask why they're not putting R3 back.  And I would hope it's because they're misapplying a rule, and then I could protest. (ie. they tell me they can't correct their mistake).

I also have the same question as @Velho - how do we know that was their final ruling?  Did they go to the defensive coach and say "yeah, it was a caught third strike, but the run stands"?

Because it could go the other way...if they ruled it was an uncaught third strike (for whatever reason - say base ump couldn't see the ball)...then they'd have a conference to determine if the umpire did anything to cause the batter to delay running (likely not).  They would simply indicate that the batter was "out"...and have no reason/need to indicate if it was at the plate or at first base.  The run would stand in this case.

If they determined it was a caught third strike, then the only correct ruling here is to put the runner back on third, because the only reason F2 threw the ball was the umpire incorrectly indicated it was an uncaught third strike.   If you undo the call, you undo the throw.  This would be different if F2 threw the ball proactively/instantly - ie. regardless of the umpire's ruling.   

NOTE: this gets even more fun if after retiring B/R at first they threw in time to retire R3 at home.  What's good for the goose...you want the run unscored, then you get the out unouted too.

[MadMax]

Disclaimer: This is a tangent, I fully realize that; however, this is an ideal situation that illustrates the fundamental flaw in a specific mechanic that is fervently taught, but should be eradicated, and those who dogmatically enforced it, should be… pilloried… or something. 

On 4/7/2025 at 12:37 PM, Mike Fincher said:

Pitch is low and outside, the batter swings and catcher clearly catches the ball without it touching the ground.

After catching the ball, the catcher takes 3 steps in front of home plate. All runners are stopped. The batter takes 2 steps toward first base and stops. The home plate umpire signals safe and indicates the previously pitched ball was dropped by the catcher.

This 👆🏼 has to stop. As in, stop using it. Stop teaching it. Cease and desist. 

It’s way too complicated and passive. It doesn’t help or benefit the catcher… who is the one fielder who needs that information the most. 

On 4/7/2025 at 12:37 PM, Mike Fincher said:

The home plate umpire and the base umpires confer. They indicate the ball was caught by the catcher and the umpire was incorrect in his signaling safe

This bothers me. And unless it’s a typo, there were (at least) two base umpires, so this is 3-man? 4-man? That means that the Base Umpires had it, definitively, as a catch?? And they’re not signaling it, at least to the PU??! Or, worse, the PU isn’t checking/glancing towards them to see what they have and overcome doubt??!  
So everyone stands around (pauses), looking uncertain, until everyone looks at the umpire… who sheepishly gives a “no catch / that’s nothing” signal??!! 
Fer Cryin’ Out Loud, man! 

What I tell catchers, and train newer/younger umpires on, is that on a potential U3K, I will either say “Caught!” and then I will give the Out (swinging) mechanic… or, I will say nothing. By saying nothing, and the catcher not hearing anything to do with “catch” or “no catch”, he has been prompted to do something – either tag out the Batter(Runner, if we’re being pedantic), or retire him at 1B, or await his concession… whatever. By saying nothing, it also gives me (as PU) a moment so as to look towards my BU(s) to see if they have a catch / no-catch signal they’re presenting. If one does, then I’ll verbally confirm, “Caught! We have a catch!” and give the Out mechanic. If none of my BU(s) have a catch signal, and/or they’re giving me a no-catch signal, I will keep my 🤬 mouth shut, and throw my right hand out to the side, in “the U3K mechanic”. 

That mechanic, that makes sense. A full-blown “safe / that’s nothing” mechanic, and saying “no catch! No catch!”? Stupid. 

[Mike Fincher]

Velho: After the conference, the home plate umpire told both coaches it was a catch, not a dropped 3rd strike and that the runner from 3rd would remain scored. 
After the swing, the batter took a few steps toward first base and stopped. The base Coach realized the HP umpire indicated a dropped 3rd strike, and yelled at batter to run which he did. 
 

Most of the info I have gathered from people I consider knowledgeable on MLB rules have indicated that the umpire’s mechanics were not the best. They have indicated that when the catcher had control of the ball after cleanly catching strike three, and the runner at third was not making an attempt to advance home, the HP umpire placed the defense in an adverse situation by his ruling. 
It was indicated that the proper ruling would have been to confirm the clear catch of the catcher as strike three and to return the runner to third.  Agree/ Disagree? 

[Velho]

You can see from the conversation that the mechanics have room for improvement (as well as the coaching if I'm honest - this is why you see catchers tag runners even on a caught 3K).

OP as presented, if it got this far on me, that's one I'd take my lumps for and place the runner back on 3rd - and subsequently spend a lot of time figuring out what broke down so we never got to that place again.

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, MadMax said:

Disclaimer: This is a tangent, I fully realize that; however, this is an ideal situation that illustrates the fundamental flaw in a specific mechanic that is fervently taught, but should be eradicated, and those who dogmatically enforced it, should be… pilloried… or something. 

This 👆🏼 has to stop. As in, stop using it. Stop teaching it. Cease and desist. 

It’s way too complicated and passive. It doesn’t help or benefit the catcher… who is the one fielder who needs that information the most. 

This bothers me. And unless it’s a typo, there were (at least) two base umpires, so this is 3-man? 4-man? That means that the Base Umpires had it, definitively, as a catch?? And they’re not signaling it, at least to the PU??! Or, worse, the PU isn’t checking/glancing towards them to see what they have and overcome doubt??!  
So everyone stands around (pauses), looking uncertain, until everyone looks at the umpire… who sheepishly gives a “no catch / that’s nothing” signal??!! 
Fer Cryin’ Out Loud, man! 

What I tell catchers, and train newer/younger umpires on, is that on a potential U3K, I will either say “Caught!” and then I will give the Out (swinging) mechanic… or, I will say nothing. By saying nothing, and the catcher not hearing anything to do with “catch” or “no catch”, he has been prompted to do something – either tag out the Batter(Runner, if we’re being pedantic), or retire him at 1B, or await his concession… whatever. By saying nothing, it also gives me (as PU) a moment so as to look towards my BU(s) to see if they have a catch / no-catch signal they’re presenting. If one does, then I’ll verbally confirm, “Caught! We have a catch!” and give the Out mechanic. If none of my BU(s) have a catch signal, and/or they’re giving me a no-catch signal, I will keep my 🤬 mouth shut, and throw my right hand out to the side, in “the U3K mechanic”. 

That mechanic, that makes sense. A full-blown “safe / that’s nothing” mechanic, and saying “no catch! No catch!”? Stupid. 

I’m verbal either way. It’s “catch”, and a hammer, or “that’s down” and an outstretched right arm. Neither is particularly loud. I don't see the harm in letting the batter and catcher know what’s going on. 

[beerguy55]

22 hours ago, Velho said:

You can see from the conversation that the mechanics have room for improvement (as well as the coaching if I'm honest - this is why you see catchers tag runners even on a caught 3K).

I do not advocate coaching this.  Nor do I advocate coaching the batter to just run first on any strike three.

They both teach bad habits and invite chaos...and in some cases even nonsense and altercations.

Believe me, when you've just whiffed on a fastball right down the pipe the last thing you want to feel is the catcher slapping you on the ass with a "just in case" tag.

Players should be taught situational awareness, and how to apply judgment.   Sure, your team of ten year olds may give up some outs by not just auto-clicking...but in the long run they will be smarter players for it.

 

I'm fine for a tag, or running, on 50/50 plays, but that's it.

[Tborze]

On 4/10/2025 at 3:26 PM, MadMax said:

Disclaimer: This is a tangent, I fully realize that; however, this is an ideal situation that illustrates the fundamental flaw in a specific mechanic that is fervently taught, but should be eradicated, and those who dogmatically enforced it, should be… pilloried… or something. 

This 👆🏼 has to stop. As in, stop using it. Stop teaching it. Cease and desist. 

It’s way too complicated and passive. It doesn’t help or benefit the catcher… who is the one fielder who needs that information the most. 

This bothers me. And unless it’s a typo, there were (at least) two base umpires, so this is 3-man? 4-man? That means that the Base Umpires had it, definitively, as a catch?? And they’re not signaling it, at least to the PU??! Or, worse, the PU isn’t checking/glancing towards them to see what they have and overcome doubt??!  
So everyone stands around (pauses), looking uncertain, until everyone looks at the umpire… who sheepishly gives a “no catch / that’s nothing” signal??!! 
Fer Cryin’ Out Loud, man! 

What I tell catchers, and train newer/younger umpires on, is that on a potential U3K, I will either say “Caught!” and then I will give the Out (swinging) mechanic… or, I will say nothing. By saying nothing, and the catcher not hearing anything to do with “catch” or “no catch”, he has been prompted to do something – either tag out the Batter(Runner, if we’re being pedantic), or retire him at 1B, or await his concession… whatever. By saying nothing, it also gives me (as PU) a moment so as to look towards my BU(s) to see if they have a catch / no-catch signal they’re presenting. If one does, then I’ll verbally confirm, “Caught! We have a catch!” and give the Out mechanic. If none of my BU(s) have a catch signal, and/or they’re giving me a no-catch signal, I will keep my 🤬 mouth shut, and throw my right hand out to the side, in “the U3K mechanic”. 

That mechanic, that makes sense. A full-blown “safe / that’s nothing” mechanic, and saying “no catch! No catch!”? Stupid. 

[johnnyg08]

On 4/10/2025 at 4:19 PM, Mike Fincher said:

Velho: After the conference, the home plate umpire told both coaches it was a catch, not a dropped 3rd strike and that the runner from 3rd would remain scored. 
After the swing, the batter took a few steps toward first base and stopped. The base Coach realized the HP umpire indicated a dropped 3rd strike, and yelled at batter to run which he did. 
 

Most of the info I have gathered from people I consider knowledgeable on MLB rules have indicated that the umpire’s mechanics were not the best. They have indicated that when the catcher had control of the ball after cleanly catching strike three, and the runner at third was not making an attempt to advance home, the HP umpire placed the defense in an adverse situation by his ruling. 
It was indicated that the proper ruling would have been to confirm the clear catch of the catcher as strike three and to return the runner to third.  Agree/ Disagree? 

The mechanics of the defense were horrible too. At what level does R3 score on an uncaught or caught third strike? 

 

[MadMax]

@Tborze, I completely endorse and concur with what you’re pointing out. Yeah, it’s great that NFHS has that in the Umpire Manual; however, that’s the problem. It’s in the Manual. How many guys read and put into practice a/the manual, especially when the (Fed) Rules still deify the PU as “god”? 

There still exists this pedantic type of umpire who emphasizes the “my my my” element of this great job we perform – “my field, my game, my call, my judgement”. 

[beerguy55]

On 4/13/2025 at 10:09 AM, johnnyg08 said:

The mechanics of the defense were horrible too. At what level does R3 score on an uncaught or caught third strike? 

 

10U...all the time.  12U...some percentage of the time.  Especially recreational levels.  At the younger levels you're still rotating players, and arm strength varies widely.

I myself am not a fan of U3K until the players are AT LEAST 12 years old.   And IFF too.  I'd even support 14.

Considering the reason those two rules exist, (or, at the very least, the exceptions to the u3k rule) the younger kids are not typically savvy, devious or skilled enough to pull off those intentional plays.

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

There still exists this pedantic type of umpire who emphasizes the “my my my” element of this great job we perform – “my field, my game, my call, my judgement”.

And my personal favorite - "my strike zone".

[johnnyg08]

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I myself am not a fan of U3K until the players are AT LEAST 12 years old.   And IFF too.

Then I guess my argument would be that the kids should be practicing more and playing less games but that of course doesn't make people rich hosting tournaments every weekend of the year, versus dumbing down the game. This is why as a whole, kids are playing more games than they've ever played but the overall game play hasn't improved at all. 

[beerguy55]

15 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Then I guess my argument would be that the kids should be practicing more and playing less games...versus dumbing down the game.

I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive, and I wouldn't classify it as dumbing down the game.

Yes, there should be much more practice time, and there should be an off-season where you focus on mechanics and situations.  Any team that doesn't have a regular 60-90 minute "practice" dedicated to solely a chalk-talk session is failing their players.

I've always advocated an incremental approach to teaching the game...and we can introduce rules and concepts as they become necessary/appropriate...and after the basics have been figured out.  No need to throw everything at them at once.

The IFF just doesn't need to be there, in most cases, for kids under roughly 14 years old...the majority of them aren't savvy enough to find the loophole to get an easy double play, and even those who are don't necessarily have the skill to pull it off.

U3K, at the lower skill levels, just adds a way to get people on base and prolong the game...U3K is almost single-handedly the reason you need inning-based run limits at those younger levels.

Why have an outfield at an age level where 90% of kids aren't capable of hitting it that far?

I'm for teaching the younger players to field ground balls and throw to first base...not worry about the force at second, until they've figured out how to get the first basics.  At the same time, I want the other players moving to the other base.

I teach ABC - 

A - Alligator - if there's an alligator on the field, leave

B - Ball - when the ball is hit, go get it

B - Base - if the ball isn't hit to you, go to a base

C - Cover - if someone has the ball, and someone has a base, go cover one of them

C - Cutoff - Cutoff a throw 

At the same timely, I have a high level of disdain for coaches who teach trick plays to their 8-year-olds, that only work because other 8-year-olds aren't paying attention.  If you will never do said trick play in a high school, college or men's league game, don't teach it to the kids...it's not helping them develop.

And NEVER teach your kids to look for the walk.  There's a special ring in Hell reserved for those coaches.

[Velho]

57 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I teach ABC - 

A - Alligator - if there's an alligator on the field, leave

I gotta ask....

[BLWizzRanger]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive, and I wouldn't classify it as dumbing down the game.

Yes, there should be much more practice time, and there should be an off-season where you focus on mechanics and situations.  Any team that doesn't have a regular 60-90 minute "practice" dedicated to solely a chalk-talk session is failing their players.

I've always advocated an incremental approach to teaching the game...and we can introduce rules and concepts as they become necessary/appropriate...and after the basics have been figured out.  No need to throw everything at them at once.

The IFF just doesn't need to be there, in most cases, for kids under roughly 14 years old...the majority of them aren't savvy enough to find the loophole to get an easy double play, and even those who are don't necessarily have the skill to pull it off.

U3K, at the lower skill levels, just adds a way to get people on base and prolong the game...U3K is almost single-handedly the reason you need inning-based run limits at those younger levels.

Why have an outfield at an age level where 90% of kids aren't capable of hitting it that far?

I'm for teaching the younger players to field ground balls and throw to first base...not worry about the force at second, until they've figured out how to get the first basics.  At the same time, I want the other players moving to the other base.

I teach ABC - 

A - Alligator - if there's an alligator on the field, leave

B - Ball - when the ball is hit, go get it

B - Base - if the ball isn't hit to you, go to a base

C - Cover - if someone has the ball, and someone has a base, go cover one of them

C - Cutoff - Cutoff a throw 

At the same timely, I have a high level of disdain for coaches who teach trick plays to their 8-year-olds, that only work because other 8-year-olds aren't paying attention.  If you will never do said trick play in a high school, college or men's league game, don't teach it to the kids...it's not helping them develop.

And NEVER teach your kids to look for the walk.  There's a special ring in Hell reserved for those coaches.

Since we are off on the tangent, at some time in a blowout, the game becomes the practice.

For example, during a JV game that the offensive team was up 7 runs in the third inning, I asked the FBC a question rhetorically about the defensive teams catcher.  The offensive wasn't necessarily running up the score, but, they were still running.  But, the catcher wasn't throwing the ball to the base on a steal even though he could have. Why wouldn't you have the catcher making that throw on every opportunity?  I understand it is situational in all higher level of play but this catcher (for both teams actually) could use the opportunity to make that throw in a real time situation.  The infielders could learn to catch the errant ball or backup... just seemed like a missed opportunity to get better.