View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 27, 2009, 09:01am
ronald ronald is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu View Post
I read that one in one of the ASA plays and clarifications, I think. That's fine, but our OP deals with something that an umpire did which caused the confusion. I don't think the rule book has a section on how umpires might extricate themselves from situations where they made the incorrect call or a premature call.
Yes, they do. It is called 10-3.C. In the case book they have plays where the umps made the incorrect call and how to extricate themselves. These plays or this play is under section 10 in the case book. There are 3 in the 2009 case book where ump makes a call that is incorrect and an out results. The umpire can rectify these situations.

Now as you can see, the "umpire did [something] which caused the confusion" and the umpire can rectify it. In FP, even though the player killed it, the ump declared no pitch, the IP is still not canceled. Why do you think because the ump declared no pitch, the IP should be canceled? I am not getting hung up on the particular of who caused the no pitch when I have clear indication from the front office that the enforcement of an IP is not canceled because it is followed by a no pitch call. Furthermore, given ASA difficult task of training 39,000 umpires, do you think they want two versions of what to do with an IP followed by a no pitch? I do not.

If everyone emails this play to their UIC's and regional UIC's, a definitive answer will come. Until then, IP stands.

Ron

Thanks.
Reply With Quote