thavoice;1206130 wrote:No, you said strike out and the runner out. What happened was the batter struck out for one out, interferance for the second out. The runner was not called out. If there had been no outs in the inning an dthis happened the runner would have returned to the base/


If you were the ump last night when it happened you would have gotten the end result correct that the inning was over...but the wrong actual call and it woulda been fubar if there were no outs.

yes lol

Wooball;1206143 wrote:Is the rule the same in high school? Would be good to know in case this would actually happen, although I have never seen it happen on strike 3 like described in all my years playing and coaching.

Also had a rules question that came to me during the Kent St v UF game. In the 9th with the bases juiced on the 3-2 pitch. Check swing, homeplate umpire doesn't immediately check with the base umpire. The runners could have easily started for the next base on ball 4. Once the base ump rings him up, are the runners live? Just watching that game in a high pressure situation with the delay on the strike 3 call, I was surprised there weren't runners all over the place.

why would the runners have to wait for the ruling? assume the runners start advancing.....if its ball 4, nothing, runners advance freely. if its strike 3, runners would be running just like its a live ball. if anything it would be on the defense who might have to wait for the call.

Glory Days;1206219 wrote:why would the runners have to wait for the ruling? assume the runners start advancing.....if its ball 4, nothing, runners advance freely. if its strike 3, runners would be running just like its a live ball. if anything it would be on the defense who might have to wait for the call.

There was only 1 out, so the runners were not off on the pitch. So when the runners look in, see the homeplate ump call ball 4 and not immediately check the swing they could have started off for the next base, only for a second later the call gets appealed and the batter is rung up leaving the runners in "no-mans" land. Would the catcher be able to throw out the runners that are reacting to what they thought was a ball 4 call and free advancement?

Wooball;1206280 wrote:There was only 1 out, so the runners were not off on the pitch. So when the runners look in, see the homeplate ump call ball 4 and not immediately check the swing they could have started off for the next base, only for a second later the call gets appealed and the batter is rung up leaving the runners in "no-mans" land. Would the catcher be able to throw out the runners that are reacting to what they thought was a ball 4 call and free advancement?

Runners can be thrown out in this case.

When I umpired I didn't see the actual rule, but found this in the casebook (just as important for an umpire as the rule book).

This is very similar to when someone is steeling with a 3-2 count and there is a check swing.

If the catcher throws the base ump is supposed to make no call but 'know' what the call would be. If the plate ump calls ball 4 and then there is an appeal on a check swing there is then 2 cases.

If the swing was "safe" then ball 4 and the field ump never makes a call for the stealing base runner since he was forced there by the walk.

If the swing was called a strike, then the field ump has to call what should have been called on the stealing base runniner (out or safe).

You want to make a HS coach go mad quickly? I was umping a HS game once and we did have 2 field umps and I was the one that switched between 2nd/3rd.

This exact scenario, runner on 1st, full count, check swing during a steal attempt. Plate ump said ball 4, play at 2nd was close but the tag happened before the runner made it (runner might have even slowed down knowing it was ball 4). The appeal to the 1st base ump was called strike 3 at that point I had to call the runner out at 2nd base.

The coach of the team that was batting was livid. I heard everything from "you called him safe at first" (which I didn't, I didn't make a call at all) to "he slowed down because it was ball 4".

I had to let him know that it was not my fault that HIS players didn't know the rules of the game (to run out a steal attempt on a check swing 3rd strike for just this instance) and that maybe he should help them learn the rules more so they know when to run hard.

jmog;1206331 wrote:Runners can be thrown out in this case.

When I umpired I didn't see the actual rule, but found this in the casebook (just as important for an umpire as the rule book).

This is very similar to when someone is steeling with a 3-2 count and there is a check swing.

If the catcher throws the base ump is supposed to make no call but 'know' what the call would be. If the plate ump calls ball 4 and then there is an appeal on a check swing there is then 2 cases.

If the swing was "safe" then ball 4 and the field ump never makes a call for the stealing base runner since he was forced there by the walk.

If the swing was called a strike, then the field ump has to call what should have been called on the stealing base runniner (out or safe).

You want to make a HS coach go mad quickly? I was umping a HS game once and we did have 2 field umps and I was the one that switched between 2nd/3rd.

This exact scenario, runner on 1st, full count, check swing during a steal attempt. Plate ump said ball 4, play at 2nd was close but the tag happened before the runner made it (runner might have even slowed down knowing it was ball 4). The appeal to the 1st base ump was called strike 3 at that point I had to call the runner out at 2nd base.

The coach of the team that was batting was livid. I heard everything from "you called him safe at first" (which I didn't, I didn't make a call at all) to "he slowed down because it was ball 4".

I had to let him know that it was not my fault that HIS players didn't know the rules of the game (to run out a steal attempt on a check swing 3rd strike for just this instance) and that maybe he should help them learn the rules more so they know when to run hard.

Thanks for the explanation. This is pretty much what I figured because I knew if the runner was off on the pitch and there would be an appealed check swing the runner(s) would be live.

The first batter of the game walks, With two strikes on the #2 in the order, he swings and misses and interferes with the first batter trying to steal 2nd. So the 2nd batter is out twice, and then on the next pitch the runner is thrown out stealing and the #3 batter leads off the 2nd inning. Then the pitcher retires 24 straight after that and gets credit for a no hitter and facing one under the minimum 27 batters. Is that correct? Does that make the scoring the #2 hitter is 0/4 and the #9 and #1 hitters are 0/2, and everyone else is 0/3?

mhs95_06;1206573 wrote:The first batter of the game walks, With two strikes on the #2 in the order, he swings and misses and interferes with the first batter trying to steal 2nd. So the 2nd batter is out twice, and then on the next pitch the runner is thrown out stealing and the #3 batter leads off the 2nd inning. Then the pitcher retires 24 straight after that and gets credit for a no hitter and facing one under the minimum 27 batters. Is that correct? Does that make the scoring the #2 hitter is 0/4 and the #9 and #1 hitters are 0/2, and everyone else is 0/3?

I don't think the 2 hole is 0-4. He didn't have an extra at bat.

Or did he?

Wooball;1206280 wrote:There was only 1 out, so the runners were not off on the pitch. So when the runners look in, see the homeplate ump call ball 4 and not immediately check the swing they could have started off for the next base, only for a second later the call gets appealed and the batter is rung up leaving the runners in "no-mans" land. Would the catcher be able to throw out the runners that are reacting to what they thought was a ball 4 call and free advancement?

i still dont ever see this being an issue. runners dont take off and sprint to the next base as soon they see a ball 4. they wouldnt exactly be out in no man's land. that plus the catcher would still have to wait for the call too since he probably heard "ball 4".