Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I wasn't speaking LL either, I was speaking genericly, and really just to prove a point.
How do you differentiate in your mind between the basecoach scenario - legal player wanders onto base and is not caught, and the OP - batter improperly gets onto base and is not caught. The admittedly absurd basecoach scenario is not an illegal sub (who'd he sub for?!?!). He's simply a player that managed to walk onto base without anyone noticing - which to me is not THAT far removed from the OP. I can't see leaving EITHER of these runners on base, regardless of the fact that a pitch was thrown. This is not up to the defense to appeal or protest. To avoid using the word "illegally", since there's obviously no real rule here, the player (in either sitch) is on base IMPROPERLY, and should (via 9.01c) be removed.
I think 9.01c should be used VERY rarely, but this sitch seems tailor made for it.
|
Now that I understand your base coaching scenario better, I admit it is a good question.
The distinction, however, is a factually based one. The OP involves a "legal player", your situation does not. I use "legal player" to mean one who is legally in the game.
In your scenario, the coach cannot at anytime be in the game legally...there is a violation of the substition rules: namely, he didn't sub for anyone! Your situation absolutely calls for 9.01 (c), if for no other reason than PBUC, MLBUM, J/R have never contemplated this occuring so its not addressed by any rules authority. But most importantly...your situation does not involve a misapplication of the rules by the umpires. There was no call made by the umpires that could have trigged the coaches' conduct.
However, in the OP, while I cannot guarantee it (since I can't read the player's mind), it is likely that the B/R went to first as a result of Balk call...that is, he believed the penalty included him going to first. As I said above, the umpires' actions in letting him go and stay at first constitute a misapplication of the rules by the umpires and demand a protest...IMHO.
We, as umpires, are often called upon to judge players' intent (was it malicious contact? Was he throwing at the batter? etc.). We can only do our best to determine the intent. The OP's batter likely went to first because of the "Balk" call and his belief that he was entitled to first base a result thereof. Your coach likely went to first because he's trying to make Ty Cobb look like a saint...he's a cheating prick. The protest rule was never intended to prevent an umpire from punishing, ejecting and nullifying the actions of a flagrant cheater...it was designed to prevent an umpire (after a period of time) from "punishing" a player, and his team, who benefitted from a misapplication of the rules.
Is that any good?
