Unraveling Erronious

[Mark Land]

Discussion from another board on which I would like your input. Please excuse the long wind up before the question. Situation: R1. B/R hits ball down sharply in front of the plate; it bounces high into the air to F1. As soon as F1 gloves the ball, UIC (erroneously) yells, "OUT!" R1 continues to 2nd; B/R stops running. F1 throws to 1st. The initial question was: What does BU do when UIC makes his call. The only opinion offered was nothing during the play. If UIC asks BU after the play BU could tell UIC what he saw. The question then becomes: what do you do now? UIC now realizes he was wrong.

One person, Bill Meyers, said: "I think the lesser of the two evils would be to allow the play to come to a conclusion, and then if asked, and only if asked, you would inform your partner as to what you saw. It is then up to him to correct his call. If he does correct his call, then the two of you should get together and place the runner(s) on such base(s) so that the defense didn't gain an unfair advantage from the umpire's incorrect call."

Here is the essence of what I originally said: It would be nice to think we can correct all our errors, but I do not see how we can here. Once B/R (or fielder) reacted to UIC's call, I think UIC is stuck with it. The OBR does not contemplate umpire error. As dissatisfying as it is. I think UIC has NO choice but to eat the call, admit he made a mistake. Otherwise, I do not have a clue how to place the runners or who to call out. I said we were then playing fantasy baseball.

Bill responded "We don't live in a perfect world, so you're not going to make everybody happy. However, if a runner is put in jeopardy because of an umpire's error, you can and should do something to correct that error. Maybe I should have said, they should "attempt" to place the runners so that the defense doesn't gain an unfair advantage." He disagreed that we should try to fix it, and said: "Sometimes umpires make mistakes. However, you can't allow either team to gain an unfair advantage as a direct result of that mistake. The reason we are there in the first place is to keep the playing field as level as possible. If you are going to upset the balance of the game, and then not attempt to correct the situation, you might as well have stayed home in the first place."

I said, fine, where do you put the runners? What do you pretend would have happened had UIC not blown it. Was B/R thrown out at 1st? Was R1 thrown out a 2nd? Did F1 throw the ball into right field? You get the point. Bill did not answer.

This has been bugging me. Today I realized my suggestion was not as "clean" as I would like. If the UIC's call stands, R1 is out too. He was "doubled off." Clearly, we can't punish the offense twice. You can easily change the fact any of 100 ways. Anytime an umpire makes an incorrect "catch" call and there are runners on base, mass confusion is not far away. How do you unravel the mess?

[Rog]

??? 9.01-c / 9.04-c

[Dave Sirbu]

Mark,
If I were in your shoes, here's what I would have done.
I would merely place the BR and R1 where I think they would have ended up had the call been made correctly. You'll probably get some flack from one side or the other but at least you would have corrected the mistake to your own satisfaction.

Besides, baseball rules allow similar judgements in different circumstances...specifically, fan interference. When there is fan interference, we umpires simply award baserunners and batter/runners what we think they would have gotten had the fan interference not occured. Really not much different than your "interference". To me this is great use of the umpire's best friend...9.01c

For what it's worth.

Regards, Dave Sirbu

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Land
[B]Discussion from another board on which I would like your input. Please excuse the long wind up before the question. Situation: R1. B/R hits ball down sharply in front of the plate; it bounces high into the air to F1. As soon as F1 gloves the ball, UIC (erroneously) yells, "OUT!" R1 continues to 2nd; B/R stops running. F1 throws to 1st. The initial question was: What does BU do when UIC makes his call. The only opinion offered was nothing during the play. If UIC asks BU after the play BU could tell UIC what he saw. The question then becomes: what do you do now? UIC now realizes he was wrong.

I'll answer in 2 parts - 1st on mechanics and then the ruling

Mechanics: These types of plays should be discussed in the Pre-game with your partner. This play reminds of when B1 swings and the ball hits him in the box. The BU will make this call because the action is right in front of him as opposed to behind the action as is the PU's view. F2 can block the Pu's view on this type of play.

In my pre-game I will tell the BU - anytime you see the ball hit the batter in the box - "Kill it". Again communication with one's partner.

Now for the ruling - since the PU made an out call as soon as F1 gloved it - he thought that the ball was caught in flight. This is a misinterpretation of the playing rules.

Now BU at this point cannot say anything because another umpire already made a call. After the play you get together with your partner and discuss and here is what I would rule.

Since by definition we do not have a ball caught in flight - I would keep r1 and second since he was forced to vacate first. The out call on B1 would stand. If this were the third out it's unfortunate for the offense. The PU would have to "eat" that call and learn from his mistake. Since F1 gloved it, chances are B1 would have been out anyhow.

Hey umpires make mistakes too we all have to learn from them.


Pete Booth

[Roland Wiederaenders]

Too bad the erronious call came out of the inexperienced umpires mouth! But the good news is that he learned something from the situation. Always try to learn something from "mistakes."

I think I would have admitted my error, given the out at 1st base [the most likely out] and continued the game with the comment to the objecting coaches "That's what would have happened!" AND, "I'm sure your B/R learned a lesson, too.......namely, keep running.......the umpire is not your Daddy at the fence, don't let him fake you out!"

Hope to see some of you at Phoenix the week of Nov 12 at the Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring Clinic for amateur umpires.

[DJWickham]

Sometimes you get lucky. If none of the manager's comes out, you probably have the right result. R1 on second, B/R out on the 2-3 play. If the BU remains silent, it might turn out all right. A kind BU might signal "safe at second", to keep the defense from trying to push a bad situation and claim that there's a double play (R1 didn't retouch on the "caught fly").

The hardest thing for me as BU in these situations is to let the PU be in control when things go shaky. But, the right thing is for the PU to take control. I would hope that the PU would ask me what I saw before declaring a double play on the failure to retouch, and I would feel badly for the manager who got tossed for the PU's error.

Does anyone use a "come talk to me" signal that says I think you blew it, but I'm going to stay out here until you toss someone or come see me.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Mark Land
Discussion from another board on which I would like your input. Please excuse the long wind up before the question. Situation: R1. B/R hits ball down sharply in front of the plate; it bounces high into the air to F1. As soon as F1 gloves the ball, UIC (erroneously) yells, "OUT!" R1 continues to 2nd; B/R stops running. F1 throws to 1st. The initial question was: What does BU do when UIC makes his call. The only opinion offered was nothing during the play. If UIC asks BU after the play BU could tell UIC what he saw. The question then becomes: what do you do now? UIC now realizes he was wrong.

How do you unravel the mess?

Personally, Mark, I would treat this the same as Umpire's Interference, which is the nearest rule that you could apply. The umpire interfered verbally with the true course of play. Place the BR at 1st and runners advance only if forced. That's what would have happened if the umpire had been hit by the batted ball before a fielder had a chance to make a play, so IMHO that's the best course to take.

BU has to tell PU what he saw. If PU chooses to act, and I believe he should, then the above course is the most appropriate. I don't believe in getting into "what if" speculation about the possible outcomes of such plays. Use 9.01(c) as a justification by all means BUT at least make a decision as near as possible to one that already exists in the book for any similar situation. That's the best way to ensure any subsequent protest will fail.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[mick]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
[B
Personally, Mark, I would treat this the same as Umpire's Interference, which is the nearest rule that you could apply. The umpire interfered verbally with the true course of play. Place the BR at 1st and runners advance only if forced. That's what would have happened if the umpire had been hit by the batted ball before a fielder had a chance to make a play, so IMHO that's the best course to take.

BU has to tell PU what he saw. If PU chooses to act, and I believe he should, then the above course is the most appropriate. I don't believe in getting into "what if" speculation about the possible outcomes of such plays. Use 9.01(c) as a justification by all means BUT at least make a decision as near as possible to one that already exists in the book for any similar situation. That's the best way to ensure any subsequent protest will fail.

Cheers,

Warren Willson [/B]

Warren,
You are a sage.
I like it. Thanks.
mick

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis

IMHO, this is a REAL stretch for umpire's interference. Umpire interference is described in 2.00(c); "UMPIRE'S INTERFERENCE occurs (1) When an umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher's throw attempting to prevent a stolen base, or (2) When a fair ball touches an umpire on fair territory before passing a fielder."

The described situation does not meet any requirements of the umpire interference rule.

Hayes,

The situation posed included a point not covered by the rules. It's a 9.01(c) judgment call.

Warren's answer was saying:

1. Consider that the plate umpire interfered with play.
2. Consider that the rulebook has only two references for umpire's interference.
3. Consider how the rulebook handles such umpire's interference plays when deciding your 9.01(c) judgment call.

It is a fair, equitable, and smart way to handle such a decision. Warren's advice is right on the money.

What would your solution be to the posted situation? How you would you handle it? Would it be different from Warren's? Please explain how and why.

It seems to me that the rulebook's guidance on similar interference does not allow for us to guess an out. We have to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense. That's what the rulebook seems to want - - in both examples of umpire's interference that are covered by the rules. I must strongly endorse Warren's excellent answer in this thread.

Let's face it. Somebody's not going to be happy with our decision one way or another. This bad boo-boo is going to mean a headache for the PU no matter what. It would be difficult for me to ignore the rulebook's guidance in this area. It seems the only fair decision to make.

[Thom Coste]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter
[B]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis

It is a fair, equitable, and smart way to handle such a decision. Warren's advice is right on the money.

What would your solution be to the posted situation? How you would you handle it? Would it be different from Warren's? Please explain how and why.

Jim,

I'll disagree with Warren here. I can't go along with umpire interference - B/R on first, R1 on second. DJWickham, in my opinion, is the one who got it right - B/R is out, R1 at second.

I believe this situation is closer to the umpire who calls a fair ball foul than it is to umpire's interference. Only the B/R reacted to the umpire's call. Everyone else continued as if there had been no call. And who knows for sure that the B/R reacted to the umpire. Perhaps he stopped running because the ball had been fielded by F1 and he figured he was a dead duck.

If you go back to the original post you'll see that F1 made the throw to first. That the B/R stopped running only made the play less urgent. But the defense made the proper play and should get the out. No presumption here - the throw was made. The question became more of what to do with R1, who advanced to 2nd. If - and only if - the defense comes out asking for the double-up at first base, will you have any serious discussion. And I can't see that happening because they all know it was a grounder, not a caught pop-up.

You are more likely to get a squawk from the offense bench that the B/R stopped running because of the early call. In that case the discussion will have to go something along the lines of "My bad, too bad. Let's play." (Add your own colorful, imaginative language as you see fit.)

Beyond that, you have all the "What if's ...?" What if the play went to second instead, what if the throw went into right field, what if ..., what if ...? Each has its own answer.

In my opinion, the REAL question in this scenario is, "Why in heck is the plate umpire yelling any call at all on [what he thinks is] a pop-up to the pitcher?" Don't we usually let that one call itself?

Thom
Member UT

[Edited by Thom Coste on Oct 29th, 2000 at 05:46 AM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Thom Coste
I believe this situation is closer to the umpire who calls a fair ball foul than it is to umpire's interference. Only the B/R reacted to the umpire's call. Everyone else continued as if there had been no call. And who knows for sure that the B/R reacted to the umpire. Perhaps he stopped running because the ball had been fielded by F1 and he figured he was a dead duck.

Tom, in the situation where the umpire calls a fair ball foul and even one player reacts, its FOUL. No outs. No bases run. Nothing. A do over of sorts. In THIS case you're still going to allow a base advance to R1 and have the BR out! How is that similar?

Originally posted by Thom Coste
If you go back to the original post you'll see that F1 made the throw to first. That the B/R stopped running only made the play less urgent. But the defense made the proper play and should get the out. No presumption here - the throw was made. The question became more of what to do with R1, who advanced to 2nd. If - and only if - the defense comes out asking for the double-up at first base, will you have any serious discussion. And I can't see that happening because they all know it was a grounder, not a caught pop-up.

So you're saying that taking the pressure off F1's throw made NO DIFFERENCE? I think that's pure speculation on your part, Thom. If the BR had been running hard, maybe F1 would have thrown wild. Maybe R1 would have made 3rd base on the wild throw and maybe the BR would have made 2nd. Why go with the maybe's?

All I was trying to say, as Jim Porter so succinctly explained, is that it is far better to use what the rule book already offers as guidance. After all, we all know the rule book says that if an umpire is hit by a batted ball then the BR gets first whether he would have made it or not! That's the way it is handled, and that is what your protest committee will use as guidance if there is an objection to your decision.

You say that the F1 still made the play, but it wasn't the SAME play as it might have been if the umpire hadn't interfered. Therefore the outcome of that play isn't valid either.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Rich]

I've read through this entire list of responses, but my answer is the same as the answer I had after reading the entire scenario, and my answer is as wishy-washy as they come.

I'd really have to see the play unfold before deciding whether to rule as Hayes/Thom or as Jim/Warren did. Since this is a situation not covered by the rules, I don't think this situation is clear cut, and no matter what you decide, the PU will spend a bit of effort admitting that he screwed the pooch.

If the play was a simple one-hopper back to the mound and the pitcher threw to first, I would (as BU) call the BR out and pretend I never heard the plate umpire. If the ball was a chop off of the plate where I could imagine the BR (running it out) beating out a hit, I would be inclined to play it Jim/Warren's way, letting the PU figure out a just ruling. [Why does the BR stop anyway? HE knows the ball was hit off the ground. Maybe that is a good enough reason for calling the BR out. Have to think about that one.]

No matter how one rules, one thing is clear: We've stepped into a situation not covered by the rules. As much as I hate when umpires throw around 9.01(c) like it is their best friend, this is a 9.01(c) situation. This is not umpire interference, although I certainly see why Warren likens it to umpire interference as the ruling MAY be the same as if it were UI.

Regardless of how the umpire rules, he is going to be open for a potential protest. He bought the potential protest by opening his fat mouth in the first place. Instead of trying to figure out a rulebook way of handling this situation (where there's none), the umpire should rule as the play would've likely unfolded absent his fat mouth and then explain that to the protest committee if it comes to that.

This brings about the true "lesson" in this entire play: There is never any good reason to "call" an infield popup, unless you are calling the IF situation. Everybody knows (or should know) the ball was caught. What is the point in announcing something so obvious to the world. Heck, even in this play the fact that the ball hit the ground was obvious to EVERYONE, save the PU.

A similar play happened to me during an Adult game in 1999. I'm BU in B. 1 out, bases loaded. Fly ball hit to right field. F4 dekes everyone out by pretending to camp under the ball. PU calls IF, even though the ball went over the head of the right fielder for an eventual double. We played the ball as if the PU kept his mouth shut, which he should've since he never actually saw the ball. Wonder what we would've done had therunners stopped running....

Rich
co-owner, UT
eContact, RightSports.com

[PeteBooth]

Let's face it. Somebody's not going to be happy with our decision one way or another. This bad boo-boo is going to mean a headache for the PU no matter what. It would be difficult for me to ignore the rulebook's guidance in this area. It seems the only fair decision to make.

Jim you are right - somebody's not going to be happy. IMO when we are searching for a ruling sometimes common sense comes into play.

In the original thread 9if we can all remeber that far back) the ball was gloved by F1.

Now how far is F1 from 1st? Not that far so chances are that B1 would have been out anyhow. I know the ball could have bounced real high and B1 could have beat the throw, but we can't rule on woulda / coulda / and shoulda's.

To me the fairest thing is r1 and second B1 out. Umpires interference is a stretch. I say use common sense and place the runners to the best of our ability where they would have been had the PU not made an error.

Hey we all make mistakes. - Learn from them and move on.

Pete Booth

[Warren Willson]

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]

[Carl Childress]

Last year I posted the following play on eteamz:

Play: No outs, nobody on. B1 swings and misses for strike three on a pitch that bounces in the dirt. B1 starts down the line toward first but stops. The catcher returns the ball to the pitcher. The defensive manager yells to the pitcher: "Throw the ball to first base." The offensive manager yells to the batter: "Run to first base."

Everybody seems confused. Nobody does anything. It's a freeze frame before VCRs.

Whereupon the defensive manager runs out to the mound and directs his pitcher to throw to first. Now the batter finally runs, but he is thrown out.

You're the UIC. What do you do?

Here's what we decided at "Referee" back in 1983:

"The key element to this case is when the defensive manager ran to the mound and directed his pitcher to throw to first base. Until this point, the ball remained alive and in play; the pitcher could have thrown out the batter-runner or the batter-runner could have safely advanced to first base. However, once the manager illegally enters the field of play -- and because there is a lull in the action -- the umpires should kill the ball and award the batter-runner first base. The manager would be charged with interference under 3.15, as when he entered the field he was unauthorized to so.

"While this case is not directly covered in the rules, we feel comfortable in not solely relying on 9.01c, points not covered by the rule. It would not be fair to allow the defense to profit because of the manager's illegal intervention. By process of elimination, this must mean that the batter-runner should be awarded first base, since he had yet to abandon his effort to reach that base.

[2000 Note: In those days we didn't know to call it "desertion" as we do now, thanks to JU/R.]

"There are a number of supplemental references which could be utilized (3.16; 4.07; 5.10g; 6.05b and j; 6.08c; 6.09b-1) to support this ruling. The only remaining decision is whether or not to eject the manager for his intrusion. In our view, a warning should be issued, with ejection to follow for a second offense. This is supported by 3.17."

++++++++++++++++++
That's the end of the eteamz post.

The current situation is also truly a point not covered by the rules, so some kind of precedent needs to be used. I would use our answer from 1983. Once it is determined that the umpire egregiously called an out on a fly ball that was a ground ball, something has to be done.

This, as Warren pointed out, is the key:

The umpire cannot assume the pitcher would have thrown safely to first. What if his name had been Knoblauch?

There are three possibilities:

1. Stick with the call: Once saved, always saved, the Baptists say. Double play, therefore. That answer has great merit in that the UIC sticks to his guns ("How come your eyes are any better than mine?").

2. Send R1 back to first, call out the BR. That's known as the "compromise" solution. It's a favorite of professional umpires: Each side gets someting. That's reasonable where money is involved. But for amateur teams/umpires that is the worst of the three possibilities. It requires the umpire to determine how well one team would have executed.

One of the major complaints umpires have about FED rules deals with their requirement that the umpire determine the meaning of "with a double play possible." In the "real" world that means the runners are configured for an easy double play. In the FED world that means the umpire determines the defense would have completed a double play but for the interference.

There's another where the FED umpire must have precognition: batter interference with the catcher's throw. Enough said: We don't want umpires "guessing" what would have happened.

(Some who would opt for this ruling might want to leave R2 at second and declare out B1. Yuk!)

3. Declare an immediate dead ball retroactively as soon as everyone admits the ball was a ground ball rather than a fly ball. That leaves two runners in limbo. Ergo, award B1 first, which forces R1 to second.

Door number three is the only ruling that takes into account precedent and the spirit/intent of the rules. I'll take my chances with the protest committee by continuing that game with two runners on.

BTW: Having the field umpire keep his mouth shut until asked is another of those recipes for immediate disaster. It is his JOB to get the attention of the UIC before the coaches come calling.