|
The following incident occurred in my twin sons' ballgame yesterday afternoon. (11-yrs-old) I'd be interested in some opinions.
Visitors at bat in final inning, down by a run. R3 with 2 outs. Batter hits a foul ball. Count 1-1. New ball is thrown out to pitcher.
Umpire puts mask back on. Pitcher has ball on the mound and is on the pitching rubber. Batter is in batter's box. R3 darts home and is safe by a whisker. PU signals him safe. Game is now tied.
Defensive manager suggests to PU that the run can *not* score since the ball was still dead after the foul ball. He emphasized to the PU that the ball was never declared live. PU conferences with BU. The run was nullified and the runner was sent back to 3rd.
It is true that the PU never pointed at the pitcher and it is also true that the PU never said "Play." Unfortunately, this particular umpire was not very diligent on this matter and usually did *not* do this throughout the game. The resumption of action was usually inferred - never explicitly declared.
Jaksa/Roder says the following: "When he (the PU) is in position, preparing to rule on a pitch to a batter, he may point to emphasize his discontinuation of time. This point does not in itself create a live ball, nor is it required of the umpire, but is often useful, especially with runners on base."
Does the umpire have the latitude to allow the play to stand on the basis that there was a strong inference that the ball *was* live and that both teams seemed to acknowledge that fact by their actions?
Our coach made an excellent rhetorical point to the umpire by asking, "In that exact instance, would you have called my runner out had the pitcher picked him off 3rd?" The umpire didn't answer.
I don't want this discussion to focus on the value of an umpire being diligent in making it clear that the ball is live or dead. That is a given and this particular umpire was remiss in that area. What I'm more interested in knowing, is if the ball can become legally LIVE by inference.
What if the umpire failed to overtly declare play resumed after a foul ball and the pitcher was allowed to pitch the ball with the batter getting a hit? Could the defense then object that the pitch should not count since the pitcher delivered it without the umpire declaring the resumption of play? That would seem absurd! So, I think there *is* an argument that can be made that the ball *does* eventually become live without the umpire necessarily having to declare it so.
Opinions?
|