Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
It would be difficult for me to ignore the rulebook's guidance in this area. It seems the only fair decision to make.
To me the fairest thing is r1 and second B1 out. Umpires interference is a stretch.
|
Pete,
I'm using your post as the most recent example of what appear to be some slightly off-base assumptions concerning what I suggested Mark Land (the original poster) should do in this scenario. Please allow me to set the record straight on one or two points, by using your post, without any suggestion that it is you in particular that I am disagreeing with, Ok?
I did NOT say that this was "umpire's interference" as defined in the rule book. I know only too well that the OBR rule book defines only two(2) specific types of umpire interference, as one poster condescendingly chose to point out (complete with rule citation).
What I DID say is that this should be
treated LIKE umpire's interference. I said that because to my mind that is exactly what the umpire has done here; he has interfered with the normal course of a play, albeit verbally. Now he certainly didn't do that in a way that the rule book provides coverage for. That is why I mentioned OBR 9.01(c) as the justification for fixing this mess.
All I was suggesting is that IF you have to go to 9.01(c) to sort out a mess such as this, you will get into much less trouble explaining your decision to a protest board by keeping that decision as closely aligned as possible with one that already exists in the rule book. THAT simple principle IS ALL I was trying to espouse.
OBR 9.01(c) gives the umpire the power to make
whatever decisions he feels may be justified in the circumstances, provided the situation isn't already covered in the rules. That is a fact. However, I believe we open up a huge can of worms whenever we try to apply this provision by speculating on the possible outcome of any play.
None of us is clairvoyant (unless, of course, you knew I was going to say that - grin) and too many influences can operate to change even the most apparently obvious consequences. My best advice is to avoid this problem altogether, by finding a ruling already in the book that is as close as a possible to the situation under consideration. If the comparative fit is too loose then by all means make adjustments, but I urge you to START from this point in your thinking on the diamond.
In the play under discussion all action should have been frozen the moment the batter-runner reacted to the erroneous call from the PU. Anything that happened after that was "tainted". The analogy I drew was to umpire's interference where the umpire is hit with a batted ball. The same net effect applies; everything after the contact with the ball has been inexorably altered. It is pointless, IMHO, to speculate on what MIGHT have happened thereafter or even to accept that what eventually DID happen would still have happened anyway.
Some of you wanted to give the defense the OUT they apparently made on the play. I say that's still a "tainted" out, because the BR had stopped running. Who among you can foretell what the effect on the F1 or F3 WOULD have been had the BR continued at full speed?
{I expect only the clairvoyants to respond to this otherwise rhetorical question}.
Bottom line is that ALL I have suggested is a reasonable place to START your deliberations under 9.01(c) - take it or leave it. On the evidence in this thread I'm sure some will most definitely leave it, but I hope many more will see the logic and value in what I've suggested.
Cheers,
Warren Willson
[Edited by Warren Willson on Oct 31st, 2000 at 05:31 AM]