defending steal (after a walk) with a runner on 3rd

[wadeintothem]

BTW Wade, you have such a way with words, did anyone ever tell you that? I can only imagine how you talk to 12 year olds on the field

If stating
"Sounds to me like you should have: Dead Ball & runner out on the Interference call..."

Simply because that is the rule.. (with the exception I typo'd and should have said "batter out")

Offends your delicate thensibilities, what more can be said?

I stated a simple fact, one sentence, with no degrading remarks. You are a very thensitive individual. Imagine what it must be like being a umpire? You'd be crying big snot bubble tears every night.

[Cannonball]

Cannonball
>>>>> "The 2b moves into the baseline halfway between 1st and 2nd. The SS takes the bag." <<<<<
>>>> "Pitcher looks 3rd then throws 2b who should be able to catch the ball and quick tag before the runner from 3rd can move." <<<<<

So when the 2nd baseman OR SS is thrown the ball by the pitcher, what do they do if the B/R is NOT in front of them in the BASE LINE? Suppose the B/R is 'walking' to 1st & then 2nd (she did get 'walked') & when the ball is thrown to either 2nd or SS, the B/R slows or stops?

Pitcher has to know when the runner is advancing and how long to hold the ball. Our first baseman wouldn't yell "runner" if she is walking. The pitcher would hold onto the ball keeping the runner at 3rd long enough until she can throw to 2B for a quick tag. Look, this play is as easy as it gets. Of course, you have to practice it. If you are saying that the opposing team can score easily then the pitcher either didn't look at 3rd OR threw the ball to the wrong person or at the wrong time. BTW, I've never seen anyone walk and then continue to walk. Also, if the pitcher is still holding onto that ball and the runner stops, she'd better get back on that bag quickly or she is going to be out SINCE the pitcher still has the ball in the circle. Finally, if you have a 2nd baseman that can catch that ball and throw home to get a runner from approximately 65 feet if the runner at third broke on the toss to 2nd, then you'd better get a 2nd baseman. JMHO!

In short, one throw to 2b for quick tag before the runner can score from 3rd. If you practice it, you'll get a lot of outs.

[3rd Base Coach]

Cannonball
You have said said some 'key words'. 65 ft????? Where is your 2nd baseman when she is 65 ft from the plate? 2nd base is 84' 10" from the plate. My B/R is not going to give your 2nd b a quick tag - plus, add about 40 ft to the 65 ft.
In the past 10 yrs the only players to get get the out on my B/R & get the R1 going home were college girls against my young 14u team - & I have 'fine tuned' the play since then (4 yrs ago).

[SBGeneral]

Depending on game, if we are ahead by a bunch or trailing but we have 3 different plays we run... Catcher is the key...

Tight ballgame, tied up or were only ahead by a run or 2.... Catcher imeadetly fires ball to 3B after the walk. 9 out of 10 times this will confuse both runners & the walked batter will stay at 1st... if were lucky we catch 3B runner sleeping... If walked batter tries to take 2B 3rd basemen fires to SS who is covering the bag... if 3B runner breaks for home SS guns them down.

Early in a game, or were behind.... Catcher fires ball directly to SS who is about 5' infront of 2B... if runner on 3B breaks SS guns ball home for out....

my personal favorite... (only coz i havent seen anyone other than us run it) Catcher fires ball to 1B who is about 2'-3' off base in the base line... 3B runner breaks & ball is fired back home

[Cannonball]

Cannonball
You have said said some 'key words'. 65 ft????? Where is your 2nd baseman when she is 65 ft from the plate? 2nd base is 84' 10" from the plate. My B/R is not going to give your 2nd b a quick tag - plus, add about 40 ft to the 65 ft.
In the past 10 yrs the only players to get get the out on my B/R & get the R1 going home were college girls against my young 14u team - & I have 'fine tuned' the play since then (4 yrs ago).

I think there are a few possibilities here. One, Obviously you're smarter and better at this than I am. Besides, you have 14Us playing college kids. My 14u daughter can barely catch a ball. Secondly, you should run your play every time since you score every time. Other wise, you always have runners at 2nd and 3rd which is good. Getting smarter as I post. Thirdly, the coaches in your area need to practice some type of defense of this scenerio since you are always going to have runners at 2nd and 3rd. Finally, they need to disregard my suggestion which obviously won't stop your strategy. Covered it all?

Now that I've admitted my ignorance, the 65 feet wasn't supposed to be specific. It seems you want tape measure. When I typed "half way" a vision should come up as to the exact postion of half way between 1st and 2nd. Therefore, that would be 30 feet from either 2b or 1b and standing in the baseline. The SS is exactly on the second base bag. I can only state factually, that we ran this at 14U, 16U and this past fall and no one scored. Of course we don't have the coaching in our area who are shrewd enough to tell a player, go to second but don't get close enough to the second baseman to be tagged by the ball when the pitcher who is holding the ball throws it to the 2b standing HALF WAY in the baseline so that she can catch the ball and tag you out on one throw. Again, the pitcher has the ball, is deeper in the circle so she can see both runners without having to worry about the rubber, but also while she has closed the gap between her and the second baseman. I am learning a lot from this site. One being there are just some things you can't defend.

Nice website by the way. Since I'm new to coaching, I have a lot to learn.

[Sam]

Sounds like no interference to me since the OP didn't mention any intent by the batter to interfere with the catcher's throw...its a train wreck.

Are you just goofing around or are you serious?

Usually you are pretty good at rules..

The word "intent" is not in the rule. Its no where to be found in the rule. Nor is this a "train wreck". The key to this are words that actually are in the rule, namely "actively" hindering the catcher.

Backing out of the box, hindering the catcher throw could very well be considered "actively" hindering. If they are stepping out of the box at the time of the INT, "actively" is not even required. That mere act is enough.

She's out...she has nowhere to go but the dugout. Please explain why the act you describe is interference, but the act of the BR actively running to 1B when she is out....attempting to draw a throw to an occupied 1B on a D3K or even a play she perceives as a D3K with less than two outs...and she gets hit by a thrown ball by F2 is not considered interference? How can you call a kid going faithfully back to the dugout after a K who happens to run into a lousy throw by F2 is interference and a BR whom is actively attempting to seduce an errant throw by F2 may do so with no penalty at all?????

That is my point and why I would not consider leaving the batters box after you have struck out isn't actively doing anything but getting the hell off the field. I think you are misperceiving he intent of the rule.

[wadeintothem]

Sounds like no interference to me since the OP didn't mention any intent by the batter to interfere with the catcher's throw...its a train wreck.

Are you just goofing around or are you serious?

Usually you are pretty good at rules..

The word "intent" is not in the rule. Its no where to be found in the rule. Nor is this a "train wreck". The key to this are words that actually are in the rule, namely "actively" hindering the catcher.

Backing out of the box, hindering the catcher throw could very well be considered "actively" hindering. If they are stepping out of the box at the time of the INT, "actively" is not even required. That mere act is enough.

She's out...she has nowhere to go but the dugout. Please explain why the act you describe is interference, but the act of the BR actively running to 1B when she is out....attempting to draw a throw to an occupied 1B on a D3K or even a play she perceives as a D3K with less than two outs...and she gets hit by a thrown ball by F2 is not considered interference? How can you call a kid going faithfully back to the dugout after a K who happens to run into a lousy throw by F2 is interference and a BR whom is actively attempting to seduce an errant throw by F2 may do so with no penalty at all?????

That is my point and why I would not consider leaving the batters box after you have struck out isn't actively doing anything but getting the hell off the field. I think you are misperceiving he intent of the rule.

I understand the intent of the rule perfectly. If you believe the intent of the rule is "intentional", well that goes against common sense since they removed that word from the rule a few years ago.

That said... the part of your statement is the essential element, and it has nothing to do with the intent of the batter. Did the batter interfere with the catcher play or was it just a crappy play and no interference?

The batters intent has nothing to do with it.
Thats the part we would have to see I suppose.

As to the second part of your question [i]"and a BR whom is actively attempting to seduce an errant throw by F2 may do so with no penalty at all?????[\i]

That's an easy one, ASA rules specifically exclude that from the INT call.

[Skarp]

I understand the intent of the rule perfectly. If you believe the intent of the rule is "intentional", well that goes against common sense since they removed that word from the rule a few years ago.

It seems to me that "actively" as used in the rule pretty obviously retains an intent component. And the removal of the word "intentional" does not preclude that reading.

"Intentional" is a very narrow standard which would make it difficult to infer interference from, say, a batter jogging near the base bath toward her dugout after a strikeout. Under an explicit "intentional" standard, an umpire could not legitimately rule such a jog interference, because intent can't really be inferred from that activity.

"Actively" allows an umpire to infer intent from a much broader range of conduct, so that little jog, whether actually intentional or not, may be penalized as such if in the umpire's discretion a penalty is warranted.

But if mere "activity" is the linchpin of the rule, then there should be little or no umpire discretion involved in its application. Relative to this, you write:

"Backing out of the box, hindering the catcher throw could very well be considered "actively" hindering. If they are stepping out of the box at the time of the INT, "actively" is not even required. That mere act is enough."

Under your interpretation of the rule, don't you mean backing out of the box must be considered actively hindering, given that backing out of the box is irrefutably an "activity?" If not, why not?

[Sam]

I know that the BR is protected by rule under the D3K....and it doesn't even have to be a D3K....the BR simply has to perceive that there is a D3K. Why? Nobody knows.

I also know that they removed the intent from the rule a few years ago so that umpires could remove themselves from the constant mindreading classes. Intentions being replaced by actions allows the umpire to more broadly interpret the situation. The key to the instant situation is that the batter has struck out...she's out...she has no reason to be in the batters box and therefore, has no protection. I would agree with your interpretation if the batter was still alive in her AB....the batter leaves the protection of the box at her own peril...at that point she is actively hindering a play. This batter has no place to go but back to the dugout. She's out. How in the world can you penalize the batter for doing exactly what she is required to do by the rules of the game? The mindreading for the umpires is removed from the rule...and in its place, you expect the freshly K'ed batter to read the catcher's mind before leaving the home plate area....do your really believe that this is the intent of the rule?

I think you are wrong, but we can agree to disagree.

[jofus]

BTW Wade, you have such a way with words, did anyone ever tell you that? I can only imagine how you talk to 12 year olds on the field

If stating
"Sounds to me like you should have: Dead Ball & runner out on the Interference call..."

Simply because that is the rule.. (with the exception I typo'd and should have said "batter out")

Offends your delicate thensibilities, what more can be said?

I stated a simple fact, one sentence, with no degrading remarks. You are a very thensitive individual. Imagine what it must be like being a umpire? You'd be crying big snot bubble tears every night.

Dammit, I almost missed this

I never said I was offended, I was just making an observation. Sorry if my opinion may have offended you

Oh, and I have umpired on and off for 20+ years, but only on a volunteer basis, never as a paid, certified umpire. I definitely don't claim to be an expert. I would actually like to do it (I enjoy umping, for some reason ), but not while my kids are playing, it's hard enough keeping up with all of their games now.

Oh, and the batter was already out, it was strike 3. The only question was is it interference and a dead ball, or is the ball considered thrown out of play, awarding the baserunner(s) 2 bases?

What if it hadn't been strike 3, and the batter was in the box, or what if she was stepping out of the box to take the sign from the coach?