Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Young IN Ref
BU reversed the call after 1-2 seconds. It was long enough of a delay that it wasn't a "split second" The 5-10 seconds was how long it took the defense to realize what that meant.
I correct my original statement "thoughts" to R2 and R3 not being out on "appeal" but rather because of a force...which I thought of as "appeal" only because of the long delay. My thought on that is similar to the Infield Fly. Even if the PU does not call an IF, the runners are expected to know the situation and requirements for IF, and may stay on their base. Sorry for the lack of casebook/rules citation, as I don't have them at my house.
Does anyone believe that the time (split second vs 1-2 seconds) between the BU changing the call matters? IE, if he immediately reversed the call, would R2 and R3, and BR be responsible for seeing that reversal?
Thanks for all the comments! Breaking it down, again, makes it seem to me that in this situation, the runners and batter-runner should have been placed at the bases they would have acheived had the original call been correct.
|
An immediately reversed call, as the situation changes (looks caught, umpire makes quick call to help the runners, but now ball dribbles out), is part of the game. While the three runners may not be looking at the umpire after watching the play (if they even watched), they do have base coaches who
ARE there just for that reason. And it is the coaches' responsibility to tell the runners to advance or return, not the umpire's.
As others have stated, you have to determine if the reversal put them in jeopardy. Don't overread the intent of "delay" in a one or two second interval, remember that we would have wanted the umpire to delay to begin with, to get the call right. We wouldn't teach and preach "It isn't anything until you call it!!" if a delay to get it right wasn't appropriate. In my mind, you had to be talking about the 5-10 second interval as the delay by the umpire, before that affected the ruling.