Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I'm flummoxed trying to understand why anyone would assume from the OP that PU awarded anything. I suppose if that was actually the case, we can't BOO him, and probably we've gone past the point where he can be removed from the base (protest too late and all that).
But this was (to my reading) NOT a case where an umpire erred. Inattentive? Yes. Failed to preventatively umpire? Yes. Buy's the round that night? YES. But what error did he make other than not noticing the wrong batter at the plate.
This can truly be simplified down to - get the runner off the base and either A) let the two pitches count, with all that implies, or B) wipe out the pitches.
Your logic that the runner can't be removed because the defense didn't protest would also mean that a team whose basecoach stepped his way onto first base (or THIRD base!) would be a brand spanking new legitimate runner if he managed to stand there without defense noticing for just 1 pitch. That's obscene.
And think about the interest of fairness here. If anyone erred here, it was the batter for getting on base when he didn't belong. Leaving him there doesn't ring as "fair". Nullifying the pitches doesn't seem fair to the defense ... after all, they didn't do anything wrong. Use 9.01c to at least get that batter off the base. I can live with either solution on the 2 pitches.
And thank the baseball gods that the improper batter didn't hit one of those pitches or get walked (with bases improperly loaded) before this was noticed.
|
First, I don't think "awarded" requires a "positive" act on the part of the umpires. That is the umpire doesn't have to say "that's a balk, batter go to first." Rather, the mere calling of a balk and ALLOWING the batter to go to first as a result constitutes an "award".
(For example, I don't say "Ball Four, take your base!" But I know umpires that say "Ball" on ball 4 and then let the batter go to first. We have not "awarded" first as a result of a positive act (saying "take your base!"), but we have definitely "awarded" it by saying "ball" and letting the batter go to first. Here the umpires awarded first to the batter by saying "balk" and letting the batter go to first.)
IMO, the error this umpires made was NOT failing to notice that the wrong batter was at the plate, the error is that he let the batter acquire first base as a result of a balk call. This is more than a difference in semantics. Though he might not have said "balk, batter go to first," he certainly allowed it to happen.
Your base coach example is irrelevant. There are rules in OBR, PBUC Manual and MLBUM that clearly state that only players listed on the line-up card can play in a game. There are rules (interpretations) that specifically address what to do should a person not listed as a player on the line-up card be discovered in the game. There is no requirement in that situation that a protest be timely lodged; the umpire on his own initiative can address it at any time. In other words, a whole different set of interpretations
directly address your proposed coaches situation...and they do not apply to this situation. And there are clearly no rules that directly address the situation in this thread.
Again, the language of the rulebook is clear: the onus is on the defense to properly "catch" (appeal/protest) the offense "cheating" (by mistake or intentionally). The onus is NOT on the offense to "self-report" any violations. This same theory applies to an umpire's misapplication of the rules. The onus is on the "offended" or "injured" team to bring to the umpire's attention (protest) immediately, or else they are forced to live with the consequences.
Unfortunately, under OBR, one's sense of "fairness" often has nothing to do with determining the proper out come of a third world play. With all that said, as I mentioned above, in a game of 9- and 10- year olds, I might be more inclined to do what others have suggested (take R1 off the base and nullify the two pitches)...but not with "shaving age" players.