dropped third strike issue

[umpire23]

I Haven't had this happen to me in a while and forgot the ruling on this. I was wondering, with bases loaded and two outs, if there is a dropped third strike and the B/R is on the run to first and all other runners are on the move as well....is the play at home a force or a tag play situation? Thanks in advance!

[eyb_uic]

Force.

[dash_riprock]

Just step on the plate (with the ball) to record the 3rd out.

[Richard_Siegel]

I Haven't had this happen to me in a while and forgot the ruling on this. I was wondering, with bases loaded and two outs, if there is a dropped third strike and the B/R is on the run to first and all other runners are on the move as well....is the play at home a force or a tag play situation? Thanks in advance!

A dropped third strike that allows the batter to run to first is treated under the rules EXACTLY like any live batted ball with the exception that it can never become a foul ball. Anything the defense may do with a live batted ball to record an out on any runner or the batter can be done with the dropped third strike. All the rules are the same as to time play or force play.

[Richard_Siegel]

Just step on the plate (with the ball) to record the 3rd out.

Many players don't get it, or realize when the batter may run to first or not. I had a strange play in a varsity game last year where a dropped third strike happened with bases loaded and no outs. Somebody from the defense's bench yelled "run!" and the batter took off for 1B. The catcher ignored the batter and got the ball and proudly ran and stepped on the plate. Seeing the catcher stepping on home plate, the runner from 3B decided that he must be out on the force (I said nothing). So the runner from 3B peeled off and ran to his bench on the 3B side. R2 and R1 moved up to the next base. When everybody stopped running I pointed at the batter at 1B and said, "The batter is out on strikes, and the runner from third is out for abandoning his effort to run the bases. We have two outs." The HC's from both teams had nothing to say. They knew their players blew it.

[KenGibes]

Nice story, Richard, and a great way to handle it. I bet, though, the team at bat had to either be dumb-struck or they raised a stink. (Maybe both.)

Understanding the reasoning why there are times a batter can't run on a dropped third strike may help some folks better identify the situation.

With first base occupied and less than 2 outs, any uncaught third strike that's blocked or gloved by the catcher could be an easy double play. Thus, with a runner on first and less than 2 outs, the batter is immediately out on strike three whether the ball is caught or not.

Like the IFF, this rule is put in place to protect the team at bat, although it sometimes seems punitive (such as when the R1 is stealing when the uncaught 3rd strike occurs.)

[heyblue26]

Many players don't get it, or realize when the batter may run to first or not. I had a strange play in a varsity game last year where a dropped third strike happened with bases loaded and no outs. Somebody from the defense's bench yelled "run!" and the batter took off for 1B. The catcher ignored the batter and got the ball and proudly ran and stepped on the plate. Seeing the catcher stepping on home plate, the runner from 3B decided that he must be out on the force (I said nothing). So the runner from 3B peeled off and ran to his bench on the 3B side. R2 and R1 moved up to the next base. When everybody stopped running I pointed at the batter at 1B and said, "The batter is out on strikes, and the runner from third is out for abandoning his effort to run the bases. We have two outs." The HC's from both teams had nothing to say. They knew their players blew it.

Richard: Very nice explaination of the rule and a great umpire story. Thanks

[mcmahm34]

Many players don't get it, or realize when the batter may run to first or not. I had a strange play in a varsity game last year where a dropped third strike happened with bases loaded and no outs. Somebody from the defense's bench yelled "run!" and the batter took off for 1B. The catcher ignored the batter and got the ball and proudly ran and stepped on the plate. Seeing the catcher stepping on home plate, the runner from 3B decided that he must be out on the force (I said nothing). So the runner from 3B peeled off and ran to his bench on the 3B side. R2 and R1 moved up to the next base. When everybody stopped running I pointed at the batter at 1B and said, "The batter is out on strikes, and the runner from third is out for abandoning his effort to run the bases. We have two outs." The HC's from both teams had nothing to say. They knew their players blew it.

Richard,

Great story and something to remember as a coach and an umpire in my case.

Since someone from the defensive team yelled "run!" In your opinion is there anyway cause for interpretation for this to be "verbal interference" negating any of the following action?

[Richard_Siegel]

Richard,

Great story and something to remember as a coach and an umpire in my case.

Since someone from the defensive team yelled "run!" In your opinion is there anyway cause for interpretation for this to be "verbal interference" negating any of the following action?

That was a typo. I meant it was somebody from the offensive team who said "run." However, If it were the defensive team, I think at the HS Varsity level the players should know better. Also, I think somebody from the defensive team was shouting "tag him!" also. The HC of the offensive team just looked very embarrassed when this happened.

[vanderark1]

That was a typo. I meant it was somebody from the offensive team who said "run." However, If it were the defensive team, I think at the HS Varsity level the players should know better. Also, I think somebody from the defensive team was shouting "tag him!" also. The HC of the offensive team just looked very embarrassed when this happened.

This is why, as a coach, I remind my catcher of the situation every time (even at the varsity level).

"2 strikes, 2 outs...put the tag on him"
"2 strikes, runner at first...you can throw to second"
"2 strikes, 2 outs...just touch the plate"

[Richard_Siegel]

This is why, as a coach, I remind my catcher of the situation every time (even at the varsity level).

"2 strikes, 2 outs...put the tag on him"
"2 strikes, runner at first...you can throw to second"
"2 strikes, 2 outs...just touch the plate"

"2 strikes, 2 outs...just touch the plate"

What if nobody is on base?

[eyb_uic]

Richard,

Great story and something to remember as a coach and an umpire in my case.

Since someone from the defensive team yelled "run!" In your opinion is there anyway cause for interpretation for this to be "verbal interference" negating any of the following action?

I have not heard or read rules for verbal interference. Can some one please help me out here.

[CoachJM]

I have not heard or read rules for verbal interference. Can some one please help me out here.

eyb,

FED 2-21-1:

...Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat...

JM

[vanderark1]

"2 strikes, 2 outs...just touch the plate"

What if nobody is on base?

That cue is used with the bases full.

"...you can throw to second" is for less than 2 outs, 2 strikes and a runner at first (or first and third if we are throwing down).

I go thru this with catchers in practice, so a simple cue reminds them of the situation. Rather than tell him "...the bases are full, thereare two outs and two strikes, if you don't catch the third strike, touch the plate. If it gets by you, your best play is probably at first...", I just say "2 strikes, 2 outs...just touch the plate" and they know what that means.

[uame]

Since someone from the defensive team yelled "run!" In your opinion is there anyway cause for interpretation for this to be "verbal interference" negating any of the following action?



FED 2-21-1:

...Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat...

JM

I think in this instance, it would be poor judgement to try to call some type of interference. How do you determine with absolute certainty if the "Run!" came from the dugout or the fans in the stands? I've never even heard of verbal interference, but at any respectable level of baseball, I believe coaches and players must be held responsible for understanding the situation and playing the game without regard for "outside verbal influence."

Could someone explain some situations where "verbal interference" would need to be called? I can only imagine this applying to, say, a runner who gets in the ear of an infielder and screams "MISS IT!" while he's trying to catch a pop up.

[bobjenkins]

Could someone explain some situations where "verbal interference" would need to be called? I can only imagine this applying to, say, a runner who gets in the ear of an infielder and screams "MISS IT!" while he's trying to catch a pop up.

That's one example.

More often it's seen (well, heard) on a pop foul near the offense's dugout (someone yells, "I got it" or "mine"), or on a sac bunt (someone in the dugout yells "Two")

[Richard_Siegel]

That's one example.

More often it's seen (well, heard) on a pop foul near the offense's dugout (someone yells, "I got it" or "mine"), or on a sac bunt (someone in the dugout yells "Two")

In leagues where verbal interference or obstruction is a rule a good guideline to use to judge when you might have to enforce it is to determine of a player reacted to a "command" he would expect to hear from his own coach or teammate to do something that effectively puts him at a disadvantage.

For examples....

F3 yells "back!" at R1 as F1 pitches, R1 dives back to the base, then the BR hits the pitch that results in a force out of R1 at 2B. If the umpire felt that F1's yelling "back" hindered R1's advance then verbal obstruction would be legitimate.

The ball is hit to the outfield and R3 scores. R1 is attempting to score from 1B. R3 is standing near HP to coach R1, but sees that the throw to the cutoff man is good and R1 might get thrown out, so R3 yells "cut two!" and the cut-off man throws throws the ball to F4 to retire the BR instead of relaying the ball to F2. If the umpire felt that R3's yelling "cut two" caused the defense to lose a reasonably good chance at retiring R3 at the plate then verbal interference would be legitimate.

[uame]

In leagues where verbal interference or obstruction is a rule a good guideline to use to judge when you might have to enforce it is to determine of a player reacted to a "command" he would expect to hear from his own coach or teammate to do something that effectively puts him at a disadvantage.

Would you enforce it on F4 telling R1 "Foul ball, foul ball" after a successful steal of second, trying to get the runner to leave the bag? In this case, I'd assume that R1 should know not to trust F4's word. The distinction being that your examples illustrate cases where the umpire has no doubt as to the identity of the offending party, but the player that is adversely effected would not have been in position to determine who shouted the command.

[eyb_uic]

I now understand the situations. I believe I know why I never heard or read this rule, I do not do Fed. Is there an OBR equivalent?

[BT_Blue]

I dont believe so. Also I dont think it exists in NCAA either.... but I am not completely sure.

[Richard_Siegel]

Would you enforce it on F4 telling R1 "Foul ball, foul ball" after a successful steal of second, trying to get the runner to leave the bag? In this case, I'd assume that R1 should know not to trust F4's word. The distinction being that your examples illustrate cases where the umpire has no doubt as to the identity of the offending party, but the player that is adversely effected would not have been in position to determine who shouted the command.

I would not enforce a verbal obstruction for an infielder saying foul ball because all players should know that only the umpire can "officially" declare a foul and it is very obvious to a runner when an umpire is speaking to him as opposed to an infielder. Runners should not believe infielders and stay on the base until an umpire sends him back.

[BrianC14]

I would not enforce a verbal obstruction for an infielder saying foul ball because all players should know that only the umpire can "officially" declare a foul and it is very obvious to a runner when an umpire is speaking to him as opposed to an infielder. Runners should not believe infielders and stay on the base until an umpire sends him back.

I don't know... if I hear an infielder tell a runner, (say, R1 who has just slid into 2B on an attempted steal), "Hey, it was a foul ball, go back." .... I'd have to consider, if not verbal INT, then certainly unsportsmanlike conduct on the fielder.

[bobjenkins]

Would you enforce it on F4 telling R1 "Foul ball, foul ball" after a successful steal of second, trying to get the runner to leave the bag?

I think there's a FED case play where this specifically is verbal obstruction, but maybe I'm imaginig things.

[darbnosnhoj]

I have not heard or read rules for verbal interference. Can some one please help me out here.

I don't know why anyone from the defensive team would yell "run."

If it doesn't make sense it most probably didn't happen that way. Stands to reason the offensive team and their supporters would be yelling run in this situation.

Could be, I missed something.