Quote:
Originally posted by emaxos
Seems to me that the infraction actually occured before the run scored (runner left early which obviously happened before a legal tag). The fact that the out call was delayed until an appeal was made which must wait on action to stop should not give the offense an advantage. If POE 1K is in regards to a general appeal play that results in the third out, I can see the run counting but in this situation, I can't believe the spirit and intent would allow the run.
|
Speaking ASA
Remember that thread on coaches we had just a little while ago? Well, these are the types of answers that cause the problem.
When someone, including umpires, offer "spirit" and "intent" without an associated interpretation of a rule as justification, it is often an indication they do not know the rules.
A team does NOT have to wait for action to stop to make an appeal. There is such a thing as a "live ball appeal". Not only does the point of emphasis support the call, but you can also cite rules 1, 5.5, 8.7.F & Effect.
BTW, the "intent" of the rule is to not allow runners to advance without following the proper procedures in doing so, which is why R2 would be ruled out on proper appeal.
Under the "spirit" of the rule, the ruling gives no team an advantage as R1 did everything in the manner prescribed by the rules noted.
My citations for the "intent and spirit" statements are the rules and POE (Point of Emphasis) above, multiple plays in sections 1, 5 and 8 of the 2003 ASA Case Book and the 2003 ASA Umpire Clinic Guide, pages7, 9, 11, 34 and 55.
While you may think this post is condescending, it is not. It is meant to be an example of what umpires deal with on a daily basis with coaches and players who "read the book, cover to cover." The problem is reading, learning, understanding and knowing are not always one in the same. And before you go there, I will agree that many umpires are just as bad as they are the real bane to a good umpire.
[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jun 20th, 2003 at 06:36 AM]