Dropped 3rd Controversy

[Brunsy41]

Ok, this is a bit complicated.  But, two 10u teams were playing in a knockout tournament and went to extra innings.  Away team scored one in their half of the inning.  Home team scored one right away and then got two outs.  There was a kid on 3rd and 1st base was UNoccupied.  We found out later that the coaches for the home team told the kid batting that if he swings on strike 2 and misses that he should drop his bat and run to first (as if it was a 3rd strike drop).  The dugout (coaches and players) started yelling for the kid to run.  This was all a ploy for the catcher to get confused and throw the ball to 1st and then the kid on 3rd basically strolls home with all the confusion and the game is over.  It worked incredibly well and they walked it off with this play.  Umpire said it's legal and that was it.  I believe it's legal but pretty bush.  I'm just wondering if anyone has ever heard of this being employed and if there is some off chance the umpire should have called a dead ball.

[beerguy55]

Yes, it's bush league.  Yes, it's probably legal. (some may argue something about unsportsmanlike conduct, and I'd support it...but I doubt you'd get consensus on it - you would certainly have to KNOW, in real time, with 100% certainty, that this was planned).

It's ultimately up to the catcher to know the count and the rule...and it's Exhibit 5127 why I don't advocate U3K at this age.

Any coach who does this should be forbidden from coaching ever again - this is a trick play that will only work at the levels where U3K is new and confusing.  This does not help the integrity of the game.  This does not help kids develop baseball skills.  This only helps kid develop deviousness.  Some coaches feel winning at 10U is THAT important.  They should be cast into the sun.

btw - with two outs it doesn't matter if first is occupied or not.

[Brunsy41]

Yes I agree with everything you said.  And yes, I guess it didn't matter if anyone was on first.  Not that it matters, this was the semi finals of the consolation bracket, not even the main bracket.  Once the dust settled, I was in shock.  The coaches were so proud of themselves.

 

[beerguy55]

31 minutes ago, Brunsy41 said:

Yes I agree with everything you said.  And yes, I guess it didn't matter if anyone was on first.  Not that it matters, this was the semi finals of the consolation bracket, not even the main bracket.  Once the dust settled, I was in shock.  The coaches were so proud of themselves.

 

Well you can tell them that their play was neither clever nor original...and it has been designed and done before their fathers were born.  They lack integrity and will never succeed in baseball or life.

I've coached teams into regional and national championships, and players who have been in the PanAm games, and at least one who will be in the LA Olympics.  No one who ever played for me or coached with me ever needed to pull off a bullSH*# play like this to feel better about themselves.

Wastes of skin taking away precious oxygen from the rest of us.  Less valuable than a screen door on a submarine.

[JonnyCat]

46 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Well you can tell them that their play was neither clever nor original...and it has been designed and done before their fathers were born.  They lack integrity and will never succeed in baseball or life.

I've coached teams into regional and national championships, and players who have been in the PanAm games, and at least one who will be in the LA Olympics.  No one who ever played for me or coached with me ever needed to pull off a bullSH*# play like this to feel better about themselves.

Wastes of skin taking away precious oxygen from the rest of us.  Less valuable than a screen door on a submarine.

You should tell us how you really feel! 

FWIW, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Non of that BS belongs in baseball.

But what I think is the real issue is actually having 10u tournaments. These sort of shenanigans are a byproduct of anything under 12u. Why? It's because these types of teams are usually coached by inexperienced daddy coaches with their hyper competitive mindset that these things are acceptable to teach the kids. All in the name of winning, and nothing to do with development.

All it teaches them is to grow up to be little assholes. 10u tournaments? F*#King joke.

[Vikki]

If you had any suspicion at all that this was planned, I think you have a decent case for offensive interference, as it is an act that "confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." Batter is out.

But even if you didn't know, I think you're also well within your rights, if you see this happening, to kill it and reset with R3 and 2 strikes on the batter. Especially at 10U. Bush league coaches can deal with it.    

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, Brunsy41 said:

Ok, this is a bit complicated.  But, two 10u teams were playing in a knockout tournament and went to extra innings.  Away team scored one in their half of the inning.  Home team scored one right away and then got two outs.  There was a kid on 3rd and 1st base was UNoccupied.  We found out later that the coaches for the home team told the kid batting that if he swings on strike 2 and misses that he should drop his bat and run to first (as if it was a 3rd strike drop).  The dugout (coaches and players) started yelling for the kid to run.  This was all a ploy for the catcher to get confused and throw the ball to 1st and then the kid on 3rd basically strolls home with all the confusion and the game is over.  It worked incredibly well and they walked it off with this play.  Umpire said it's legal and that was it.  I believe it's legal but pretty bush.  I'm just wondering if anyone has ever heard of this being employed and if there is some off chance the umpire should have called a dead ball.

 

That's enough evidence for me.  10u.  SMH.

 

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It's ultimately up to the catcher to know the count and the rule...and it's Exhibit 5127 why I don't advocate U3K at this age.

 

I will ask this question every time I hear that: Why does the batter not have any culpability?  Why do we allow him to feign ignorance and reward him?  

(Answer: because of a flippant comment in the rule book or a case play about "the catcher should know.")

While looking to see if I could find that comment, I did find NFHS Case Play 7.3.1(F) (2018 edition) which has a batter running on a mis-believed ball 4.  That case play actually does call for the umpire to issue a penalty strike for a batter's box violation if the batter running delayed the game.  I don't think I have ever seen us discuss that aspect of this "I'm smarter than the game" play that we discuss all too often here. 

So in the OP, we have strike 2 on the swing and strike 3 on the penalty.  No run.

I also found that BOTH teams are responsible to know the situation for an infield fly.

 

[orangebird]

Cracking up that this genuinely might be the 4th time someone has posted about this scenario, we officially have an epidemic 

[SeeingEyeDog]

There is bush league and then there is...whatever this was from the OP's post.

Dirty Harry taught us, "...and a man has got to know his limitations." and I believe I have reached mine. Not only am I grabbing the batter out here for the "verbal interference" and resetting R3 but, I am also ejecting the coach...and as CIA officer Jerry Ziesmer might have said in "Apocalypse Now", "...ejecting...with extreme prejudice". This is not how we play this game. At ANY level.

And if the league or my association chooses not to back me, I'm an independent contractor who will take my gear and go home and work the next township over, thanks...I want no part of a "baseball league" that thinks this sort of thing is ok.

~Dawg 

[MadMax]

This is addressed to everyone, not just you TMIB. It just so happens that what you remark starts my gears spinnin’… 

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

because of a flippant comment in the rule book or a case play about "the catcher should know."

If the “catcher should (or is supposed to) know”, then I (as plate umpire especially) am going to state and remind him – and everyone else – what the count is! 

I’m well within my rights and duties to do so! This isn’t “coaching players”, nor is it stretching or instituting rules applications in… litigious ways so as to thwart a gross abuse of the rules. I understand and endorse that Harry Wendelstedt espoused “Common Sense & Fair Play”, so yes, this is an instance of unfair play that needs to be righted. 
However, I don’t want to “wrong” the other kids so as to make it right. I have to identify the context and the components at work – these are 10-year old players, being manipulated by the adults, like pawns. While calling outs for interference would bring justice, would it do right by the kids – the pawns – themselves? No. 

Think and compare this to kids playing pickup baseball / kickball / sockball / wiffleball in whatever space they can find. How do they iron out conflict, and transgressions of “the(ir) rules”?

So in this case, I would likely start with reminding / stating, loudly and clearly, what the count is. “That’s only strike 2! That’s only strike 2! No no no, where are ya (Batter) going? Get back here… pick your bat up. The count is now # and 2!” And if any adult wants to squawk and gripe that I can’t “do that” and “kill play (or a scoring opportunity, if they’re that brash to state their intent)”, I’ve done nothing outside the rules and roles and duties that I’m upholding, and they are all playing under. 

19 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

It's ultimately up to the catcher to know the count and the rule...and it's Exhibit 5127 why I don't advocate U3K at this age.

Did anyone ask what would have happened if F2, I don’t know, like, caught the swinging strike? 🤔 

19 hours ago, Brunsy41 said:

Umpire said it's legal and that was it.

This upsets me. I can just mentally picture a Weekend Wally, standing stock still there, and fixated on turning the dial on his indicator, while all this happens. Yeah, it’s “legal”. 🙄 Have some situational awareness and engagement in the game! Recognize what’s afoot! 

[noumpere]

I can see some leagues / levels having rules against this.  And, certainly, teams should try to learn to play "the right way." But, unless the umpire is also going to rule against (and penalize with OBS or INT) the "miami play", or skunk in the outfield,  even pretending to catch a fly ball so the runners stay close to the base, or pretending a pop up is a grounder so the runner strays and can be doubled off, or .... then the umpire should just go with the rules and allow the play in the OP.

 

I do agree with MadMax that the umpire should announce the count and then let it play out.

[JonnyCat]

55 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I do agree with MadMax that the umpire should announce the count and then let it play out.

Yep. Do this.

[Replacematt]

22 hours ago, Vikki said:

If you had any suspicion at all that this was planned, I think you have a decent case for offensive interference, as it is an act that "confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." Batter is out.

But even if you didn't know, I think you're also well within your rights, if you see this happening, to kill it and reset with R3 and 2 strikes on the batter. Especially at 10U. Bush league coaches can deal with it.    

That rule alone cannot be used to justify interference per Wendelstedt.

This is nothing.

[The Man in Blue]

Yet, at some point we must delineate the vast differences between the professional paid adult baseball player that Wendelstadt represents and the majority of the baseball playing community.

Totally agreed with @MadMax that we are (should be!) loudly, forcefully, and brazenly reinforcing the count for everybody.  Maybe I am misreading you though, Max … I am not reading your comments as “let it play out” though.  Not at the level we are discussing in the OP.

For those who are proclaiming this a fair play (too bad for the catcher), at what point does this cross your boundary?  The second time?  The third time?  The tenth time?  When every batter is running like it is the Atlantic League?  When the coaches are high-fiving in the dugout?  When they say “I can’t believe that worked!”?

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

For those who are proclaiming this a fair play (too bad for the catcher), at what point does this cross your boundary? 

When the league puts in a rule against it.

 

eg (and you may have different levels in mind):

10U -- no D3k

11U --  D3K, but runners may advance only when batter becomes a runner

12U -- Full stealing

 

Honestly, I only care if I' on the board of the league.  If I'm just the umpire, I administer the rules I'm given.

[Replacematt]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Yet, at some point we must delineate the vast differences between the professional paid adult baseball player that Wendelstadt represents and the majority of the baseball playing community.

No, we don't need to in this case.

[MadMax]

On 5/9/2025 at 5:10 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Maybe I am misreading you though, Max … I am not reading your comments as “let it play out” though.

Let me clarify… I’m letting it (the ball) stay Live; I’m not calling “Time!”. 

However, I subscribe to the belief that if I am aware and alert to this ploy (pee-ell-oh-wī), my declaring what the count is, what the balls (less than 4) and/or strikes (less than 3) actually now are, and facetiously questioning where the Batter is going… then the catcher (F2) doesn’t throw it (away). In fact, if the catcher is aware enough, he might just notice R3 creeping in much too liberally, and make a play on him. 

Who knows?  Anything’s possible. In either case, I haven’t done anything outside of my roles and duties. 

I take the same approach to U3Ks. I proclaim “Caught!” if I have it as a catch… if I don’t say anything (not one stinkin’ word), then a catcher “knows” to retire the (now) BR by tag or throw. This is a great failsafe. Going further, if/when 1B is occupied with < 2 Outs, I’ll repeat “He’s (Batter’s) Out, He’s Out, first base occupied, he’s Out.” If the F2 still throws it or tags the RR, that’s “on him” – I did my role. I’m simply stating what the status of “that” Runner is. 

So, much more frequently than ever, my communication doesn’t see “it play out”, because that “play” doesn’t happen. 
Make sense? 

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/10/2025 at 5:42 AM, Replacematt said:

No, we don't need to in this case.

These are the types of plays that necessitate delineation.

[The Man in Blue]

On 5/10/2025 at 7:08 AM, MadMax said:

Let me clarify… I’m letting it (the ball) stay Live; I’m not calling “Time!”. 

However, I subscribe to the belief that if I am aware and alert to this ploy (pee-ell-oh-wī), my declaring what the count is, what the balls (less than 4) and/or strikes (less than 3) actually now are, and facetiously questioning where the Batter is going… then the catcher (F2) doesn’t throw it (away). In fact, if the catcher is aware enough, he might just notice R3 creeping in much too liberally, and make a play on him. 

Who knows?  Anything’s possible. In either case, I haven’t done anything outside of my roles and duties. 

I take the same approach to U3Ks. I proclaim “Caught!” if I have it as a catch… if I don’t say anything (not one stinkin’ word), then a catcher “knows” to retire the (now) BR by tag or throw. This is a great failsafe. Going further, if/when 1B is occupied with < 2 Outs, I’ll repeat “He’s (Batter’s) Out, He’s Out, first base occupied, he’s Out.” If the F2 still throws it or tags the RR, that’s “on him” – I did my role. I’m simply stating what the status of “that” Runner is. 

So, much more frequently than ever, my communication doesn’t see “it play out”, because that “play” doesn’t happen. 
Make sense? 

 

It totally makes sense, Max, and I completely get that those who work higher level ball will encounter much higher success rates with this tactic.

But . . . as we are a resource for many umpires who are just beginning their journey and many more umpires who work levels where coaches think they are smarter than the game and found the loophole that will take their team to the National Greater Middle Northern Division South Conference League Intergalactic Series Championship of Lower Menahatchie Falls . . . 

What happens when the play turns into chaos?  (And for the love of the Umpiring Gods, please don't shrug and say "the catcher should have known." 🙄) 

 

Again, I am not talking about a legitimate mistake on the batter's part that we gain control of.  For conversation and guidance of our less experienced brethren, I am talking about that designed play when the King of the Dugout Gang are over there high-fiving themselves for being oh-so-clever.

 

[noumpere]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

What happens when the play turns into chaos?  (And for the love of the Umpiring Gods, please don't shrug and say "the catcher should have known." 🙄) 

 

Two things:

1) Laugh along with everyone else and then rule on what happens.

2) Discuss it ad nauseam on a discussion board about how the play upsets our sense of fairness

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Two things:

1) Laugh along with everyone else and then rule on what happens.

I know you're being jovial but the situation we're talking about is the 8U/10U where this is being coached just as much as 'head down eye on ball'. It's explicit and no one is laughing when it repeatedly happens. It's a symptom of broken baseball culture.

[noumpere]

14 minutes ago, Velho said:

I know you're being jovial but the situation we're talking about is the 8U/10U where this is being coached just as much as 'head down eye on ball'. It's explicit and no one is laughing when it repeatedly happens. It's a symptom of broken baseball culture.

It's a league issue, not an umpire issue.  If you're a league administrator and the play is a problem, make a league rule.  If you're the umpire, officiate the rules you are given, or don't umpire that league.

[The Man in Blue]

19 minutes ago, noumpere said:

It's a league issue, not an umpire issue.  If you're a league administrator and the play is a problem, make a league rule.  If you're the umpire, officiate the rules you are given, or don't umpire that league.

 

While I agree with your concept, I highly disagree with this.  We are not there to allow this stuff and shrug.  While there may not be a specific citation in the book spelling this out letter by letter, there is enough there for us to put a stop to it.  We have sportsmanship rules, we have pace of play and delay of game rules, and we have the one rule that charges us with our most misunderstand obligation to the game: to rule on things not covered in the rulebook. 

A little part of my umpire soul dies every single time I hear or see an umpire kicking the can because they simply don't want to deal with it.  "Not in the rule book" is NOT the same thing as "it must be legal."  If it is not in the book, then we must use what IS there to determine its legality.  We don't get to shrug and say, "sucks to be you."

I am not saying look for ways to inject yourself and impart your opinion.  I am saying that when odd things occur, especially when they occur repeatedly, we must uphold that duty.  Maybe we decide it is legal based on rules, maybe we decide it isn't legal . . . do NOT shrug.  If you are going to allow it, then you better be able to cite something better than "it isn't in the book."

I totally agree with you that it is also a league issue.  One of the things that drove me nuts when I ran our local program was that very few of our past rules changes had anything to do with giving the kids a better playing experience; they were almost all about reigning in the adults.  That said, organizations do need to take a stand on this stuff with their coaches.

[beerguy55]

30 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

That said, organizations do need to take a stand on this stuff with their coaches.

They need to, but it will be a crapshoot.  Especially at the rec level a lot of these org committee members are more interested in empire building than bettering the game for the kids.

[The Man in Blue]

8 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

They need to, but it will be a crapshoot.  Especially at the rec level a lot of these org committee members are more interested in empire building than bettering the game for the kids.

 

I can't disagree with you there. 

At the rec level, I am a staunch believer that the organization should NOT be run by coaches.  Coaches should have some input, but your board cannot comprise of just coaches.  Hell, I'd say that is a benefit in travel, too. 

One of the most important changes I made to our local program was to update to our by-laws, including changing the board from "all coaches" to a true board of 5 members.  It was a pretty easy pitch when the by-laws stated the board had to appoint the coaches, but the board was made up of the coaches (who would never come to business meetings, so they technically couldn't be appointed).

[Replacematt]

6 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

These are the types of plays that necessitate delineation.

Why?

It's not interference in MLB, and it's not in tee ball.

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

While I agree with your concept, I highly disagree with this.  We are not there to allow this stuff and shrug.  While there may not be a specific citation in the book spelling this out letter by letter, there is enough there for us to put a stop to it.  We have sportsmanship rules, we have pace of play and delay of game rules, and we have the one rule that charges us with our most misunderstand obligation to the game: to rule on things not covered in the rulebook. 

This is covered.

We aren't the morality police.