drop 3rd-no-actually walk?

[Mr. Wonderful]

OK, here is the play. Just looking for another view. Count is 3-1. Batter swings and misses. Catcher drops catch of pitch. So count should be 3-2. Batter takes off running to 1st base thinking it is a dropped 3rd. Catcher throws down to 1st. Home plate blue tells batter to get back, count is full. Blue in field calls HP blue for conference and awards the runner 1st base, saying the throw down to 1st is a ball? So she was awarded a walk? Is this correct?

[GIMNEPIWO]

Not sure what rule set you are asking in ... and don't have any of my books in front of me nor time to look it up ... but a live ball thrown to a base by a catcher, with no one on base can be a ball awarded to the batter ( I think in ASA & NSA, but not NFHS ) ... This is a DMC play ...

[MTR]

OK, here is the play. Just looking for another view. Count is 3-1. Batter swings and misses. Catcher muffs catch of pitch. So count should be 3-2. Batter takes off running to 1st base thinking it is a dropped 3rd. Catcher throws down to 1st. Home plate blue tells batter to get back, count is full. Blue in field calls HP blue for conference and awards the runner 1st base, saying the throw down to 1st is a ball? So she was awarded a walk? Is this correct?

Speaking ASA

Technically, yes. (6.7.B)

Appropriately, no. There is an exception to 6.7.B if there is a batter-runner. Well, if the offensive player believed she was a BR, why cannot the catcher? If the umpire is going to be making this call, s/he should be willing to ring up a third strike for violating the 10-second rule should it be effected.

Such action by the batter could also be argued to be unsportsmanlike and since that is a judgment call, such action could also be considered technically correct.

[MTR]

Not sure what rule set you are asking in ... and don't have any of my books in front of me nor time to look it up ... but a live ball thrown to a base by a catcher, with no one on base can be a ball awarded to the batter ( I think in ASA & NSA, but not NFHS ) ... This is a DMC play ...

True in NFHS, 6.3.2

[shockcoach]

I would call interference on the batter for confusing the offensive team before I gave them ball 4.

[shockcoach]

I would call interference on the batter for confusing the offensive team before I gave them ball 4.

I think that is a stretch. I am all for ball 4 being awarded on a DMC

What caused the catcher to throw down to 1st? The confusion set by the Batter taking off when they shouldn't have. Like I said, I would call interference BEFORE I called ball 4. If I were behind the plate, I would do as I have seen done many times, order the batter back to the ball and proceed with the game. No ball 4 and no interference.

[MTR]

Interference is not an option since there is no play with which to interfer.

Preventive umpiring of killing the ball the minute the batter takes off would alleviate any question of who is right, wrong or dumb.

Start awarding balls, and you will have the batters running on every pitch once they receive 3 balls.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Interference is not an option since there is no play with which to interfer.

Preventive umpiring of killing the ball the minute the batter takes off would alleviate any question of who is right, wrong or dumb.

Start awarding balls, and you will have the batters running on every pitch once they receive 3 balls.

That was my concern. I could see this being a tactic in the early years for sure. However, this was HS, if for some reason catcher thinks "what the hell is she doing" and then doesnt throw, and then for some reason "she" has the count wrong, she would probably get crucified by her coach. Even though she should always know the count, the basic instinct sometimes takes over. I would rule for "killing of the ball" too. You could call unsportsmanlike, and give a warning. I could only imagine what that coach would say to you then.

[MTR]

You could call unsportsmanlike, and give a warning. I could only imagine what that coach would say to you then.

Coach: Mr. Umpire, you cannot kill that ball, you have to rule the catcher violated rule 6.
Umpire: Coach, obviously both players were mistaken as to the count and I corrected them.
Coach: But she threw the ball to F3.
Umpire: And your batter left the box feigning an attempt to secure 1B when she did not have the right to do so.
Coach: We teach all our players to do that.
Umpire: Why, Mr. Coach, did you just admit to instructing your players to act in an unsportsmanlike manner?
Coach: ...........................

[Rotatorcuff]

Similar play in rec last week caused quite a ruckus between the two head coaches.

10U rec. Bases loaded, 1 out. 1-2 count. Batter swings and misses and takes off for first and their coach is yelling for her to go. Catcher blocked ball in front of her; picked it up and tagged home plate. The umpire hasn't said a word. The catcher hears the other coach yelling go, go, so she decides to throw to first. And then a few more throws around the field and two runs scored.

This was a young kid umpire that was only slightly familiar with D3K rule.

My question: Does the umpire have an obligation to call the batter out in this situation to avoid these kinds of plays? Can this attempt be called unsportsmanlike?

The umpire realized after all the commotion that the batter should have been called out. In the end the batter was out and removed from the base, but the two runs remained in the book.

A week later these two coaches are still arguing the call. In my view, the scoring runners should have been put back on base and removed from the score book. The opposing coach has the view that we made a play at first so the runners can advance at their own risk; however, she was not a legal runner at that point and had she been called out by the blue the throw to first would probably never happened.

What's your call?