http://iscoresports.com/

Runner on first. Bunt up toward 3rd, 3rd baseman fields ball turns to second for the force, does not throw as he is too late and holds the ball not throwing to first. My opinion he held the ball as the throw to first would have allowed the runner at second advance to third. Secondly if the 3rd baseman would have fired the ball to first the runner would have been out.

Fielder's Choice or Hit?

If there is no throw, it is a base hit.

Even though it is clearly defensive indifference?

If it is merely slow handling of the ball and the fielder decided not to throw because he would not have gotten the runner out, then it is a base hit. You described it as the player "turns to second for the force, does not throw as he is too late and holds the ball not throwing to first". If it is simply slow handling of the ball, it is not an error so is a base hit.

If you believe the fielder could have thrown the runner out and simply chose not to after the slow handling, then it could be marked as Fielder's Choice.

It would not be Defensive Indifference as that would mean the defense did not care about the runners at all (this is usually reserved for "stolen bases" when a team has a HUGE lead and the catcher and pitcher decide to not even bother holding the runner on base).

Based on the way TMack describes this, I've got it as a fielder's choice. The third baseman made a choice to try to get the lead runner. Seeing he couldn't get the runner out, he held on to the ball and did not throw to first for whatever reason. Had he initially thrown to first, absent of an error, the batter would have been out.

I've only got softball rules to go by, 14.7.1.2 speaks somewhat to it, but NCAA rule 14.7.1.4 I think speaks to you can have a fielders choice with no throw being made. Although it is kind of confusing to me as I look at it now in that 14.7.1.4 talks about checking a base runner and then says its a fielders choice if the base runner would have been out if the initial throw went to first. I guess I've assumed that was a misprint and they were meaning the batter would have been out if the initial throw went to first. The rules seem to differentiate between base runners and batters so now I don't know for sure.

So I'm hoping someone can clarify this as I may have been thinking this through incorrectly.

I would score this a FC. The defense chose to hold the lead runner rather than take the out at first. It is definitely not defensive indifference. As FTM pointed out, that is rarely the correct choice and only applies when the defense has such a large lead they don't care if the offense advances a base (usually in steal attempts.) Note that defensive indifference is not correct when there is a runner at third and first and no throw on the steal because defense wants to hold the lead runner. That should be scored as a stolen base for softball. I believe baseball may score that as a FC.

team mom wrote:I would score this a FC. The defense chose to hold the lead runner rather than take the out at first. It is definitely not defensive indifference. As FTM pointed out, that is rarely the correct choice and only applies when the defense has such a large lead they don't care if the offense advances a base (usually in steal attempts.) Note that defensive indifference is not correct when there is a runner at third and first and no throw on the steal because defense wants to hold the lead runner. That should be scored as a stolen base for softball. I believe baseball may score that as a FC.

It is a stolen base in baseball also.

I have the original situation (fielder holds the ball instead of throwing either runner out) as a hit. I never really agreed with this interpretation, but that is the way I've seen it scored by professional scorekeepers.

PetroGuy wrote:

team mom wrote: I have the original situation (fielder holds the ball instead of throwing either runner out) as a hit. I never really agreed with this interpretation, but that is the way I've seen it scored by professional scorekeepers.

My parents would appreciate that. They think I'm too stingy with hits as it is.

Just occurred to me, where does also calling this a sac bunt enter into the scorekeepers decision?

ixamnis wrote:Just occurred to me, where does also calling this a sac bunt enter into the scorekeepers decision?

I did not focus on the fact this was a bunt at all. Would score as a hit.