Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:
Originally posted by akalsey
How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?
The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.
My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.
|
This play was already covered in the NAPBL.
|
Close, but the NAPBL reference addresses batted or thrown balls, not pitched balls:
4.19 BALL STRIKES BIRD OR ANIMAL
If a batted or thrown ball strikes a bird in flight or other animal on the playing field, consider the ball alive and in play the same as if it had not touched the bird or animal.
Moreover, the umpire in the Randy Johnson bird mutilation incident didn't follow the NAPBL ruling; instead of leaving the ball live, he killed it and declared no pitch.
I think it's accurate to say he invoked 9.01(c) in making that ruling.