Delay question

[pdad11]

Situation: Batter has 1 strike, swings and misses for strike 2. Catcher drops ball, 3rd base coach yells for batter to run which she does. Catcher gets confused and tosses down to first. Plate ump calls girl back to plate and tells us that since catcher did not know count, he was adding a ball to the count to make it 1 and 2. Said it was for delay of game. Anybody ever heard of/seen this?

[umpinva]

Situation: Batter has 1 strike, swings and misses for strike 2. Catcher drops ball, 3rd base coach yells for batter to run which she does. Catcher gets confused and tosses down to first. Plate ump calls girl back to plate and tells us that since catcher did not know count, he was adding a ball to the count to make it 1 and 2. Said it was for delay of game. Anybody ever heard of/seen this?

What rules was this game being played under?

[wadeintothem]

Speaking ASA -
A catcher MUST return the ball directly to the pitcher.

If you they don't do that, it is a ball on the batter.

Exceptions:
strike 3, put out, attempted put out or with runners on base.

Yes, the defense must know the count; however, the proper call is a no call in this situation.

The intent of the rule is to prevent a delay of the game. The batter running to 1B was the delay in this situation.

Thats my opinion. You are going to get differing opinions on this call from even knowledgeable umpires who will debate it is not an attempted put out since that batter, who is not a batter runner, could not be retired on that play.

So there you have it, I think on protest the no call could get upheld by invoking rule 10, it was still an attempted put out, or batter must be in box between pitches, intent and spirit of the rule or who some other argument I could dream up if I put a lot of thought into it; however, I've not seen it go that for.

Just reset em and here we go, lets play ball.

[umpinva]

Situation: Batter has 1 strike, swings and misses for strike 2. Catcher drops ball, 3rd base coach yells for batter to run which she does. Catcher gets confused and tosses down to first. Plate ump calls girl back to plate and tells us that since catcher did not know count, he was adding a ball to the count to make it 1 and 2. Said it was for delay of game. Anybody ever heard of/seen this?

I'm surprised that the DC didn't argue that the batter should be out for interference. I don't have my ASA book in front of me but under NFHS SECTION 32 INTERFERENCE (OFFENSE)
ART. 1 Interference is an act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders OR CONFUSES any fielder;

The catcher should know the count....the batter should know the count also.

[GIMNEPIWO]

I was thinking the same thing,,, but this newby Blue know it all Coach don't know sh*t yet ... but maybe a strike on the batter because this can be an offensive tool otherwise ... Sorry... 6 pack into the evening , I'll research tomorrow...

[wadeintothem]

While because of the way NFHS has written their rule, I suppose it can be argued there could be INT.

In ASA for INT in this situation a play must be being being made.

While there is running around going on, there is no play and hence there cannot be INT.

That's just a side note.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Pick up my ASA rulebook this Sunday Wade at a clinic... I'll be better prepared soon in that rule set ... but its funny how the omission of one word can change the entire rule ... or the interpretation of it, maybe not the intent ...

[MTR]

Situation: Batter has 1 strike, swings and misses for strike 2. Catcher drops ball, 3rd base coach yells for batter to run which she does. Catcher gets confused and tosses down to first. Plate ump calls girl back to plate and tells us that since catcher did not know count, he was adding a ball to the count to make it 1 and 2. Said it was for delay of game. Anybody ever heard of/seen this?

DMC

Calling a ball for not returning the ball directly to the pitcher is supported by rule. And the catcher, of all players, should be aware of the correct count.

If the catcher returns the ball to the pitcher, there probably is no way the batter is back in the box and ready to hit in 10 seconds. Then the umpire could apply a strike to the batter.

If the umpire thinks the coach's action was done with the intent of drawing the throw (and subsequent ruling), the umpire might have a little conversation with the coach about unsportsmanlike conduct. If the coach is just not alert enough to know the count, the umpire could offer to sell him a spare indicator to help him out

[GIMNEPIWO]

The OP does not state that there are runners on, so
NFHS Casebook situation 6-3-2-B :
F1 delivers a ball outside the strike zone to B1 with no runners on base. F2 throws the ball to F5. RULING: The umpire shall award a ball to the batter for the catcher not returning the ball directly to F1 with no runners on base.

With runners on, the closest I've found so far is NFHS situation 8-1-1 B:
With less than 2 outs and R1 on first base, F2 drops B2's third strike. B2 begins running to first base, F2 attempts to throw B2 out and overthrows F3. RULING:As soon as B2 starts to run to first, the Umpire shall forcefully announce that B2 is out ( because of the 3rd strike and 1st base being occupied ). The Ball remains live.

Unsporting Acts situation 3-6-13 situation B:
With R1 on first, B2 receives ball three and begins advancing to first base as if ball 4 had been called. R1 advances to second as if B2 has received a walk. F2 quickly asks the umpire if the pitch was ball four, but in the confusion R1 advances to second base safely. RULING: The defensive team should always be alert of the count and attempt plays accordingly. If the umpire believes the team at bat purposely had its batter run to first on ball three, the umpire could eject the batter for exhibiting behavior not in the spirir of fair play. Otherwise, the Umpire may warn the Coach of the team at bat and eject the next player to exhibit behavior that is not in accordance with the spirit of fair play. R1's advance to 2nd is legal.

One might argue that the batter in the OP is not yet a batter /runner by description and has no right to attempt running to 1st base. If that is the case, than we could have Coachs and maybe batters interference ( NFHS) -batter out, any base runners return to the last base occupied at the time of the pitch.

Am I getting warmer or just looking for trouble ?

NSA Speaking now:
RULE 6-5-E : the catcher must return the ball directly to the pitcher after each pitch except after a strike out, putout made by the catcher, or a play on a baserunner
RULE 7-8-D : The Umpire calls a ball when the catcher fails to return the ball directly to the pitcher as required in rule 6-5-E
OR
INTERFERENCE: is the act of an offensive player or team member, who impedes or confuses a defensive player while attempting to execute a play. If judged by an umpire, vocal interference may be called.

So, here is where I'm looking for trouble ... WHO in this definition is " attempting to execute a play " ? Can the offense confuse a defensive player while they ( the offense ) are attempting to execute a play ?

[wadeintothem]

I dont do NSA and I'm messing up on NFHS rules because I'm not working it this year and not studying them.. so I'll just speak in general terms.

The rule does not apply at all with runners on.

In ASA, this situation is pretty specifically treated at DMC.

For USC, USC glares or its not USC. You never have to worry about "what is USC" because when you see it, you will know it. If you are scratching your head wondering "gosh was that unsporting" - then IMO, it wasnt and move on. Let them play ball.

This play is on F2. 99.9% of the time, bring the batter back, give the count, and go on.