Application of 9.01(c)

[akalsey]

How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?

The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.

My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.

[Rich]

Originally posted by akalsey
How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?

The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.

My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.

In fact, 9.01(c) is probably invoked more often than that, but not when something specific exists to the contrary.

[mick]

Originally posted by akalsey
How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?

The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.

My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.

akalsey,
I've never used it, but I keep it in my pouch.

Yeah, birds, airplanes, boats.... ...Meteors.
...Most anything that surprises me.
Those things work.
mick

[DG]

Originally posted by akalsey
How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?

The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.

My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.

Or like when a runner's helmet falls off his head and interferes with a fielder who is fielding a ground ball, or when a runner overslides 2B to break up a DP and ends up so far away from the bag he can't reach. These are two cases I have already mentioned were good cases to use 9.01(c). It's not for use so I can rule on something I don't like. I don't care whether the runner's helmet falls off and interferes with a fielder fielding a ground ball. But in understanding the definition of interference I think it qualifies, but is not covered by the rules. Sliding away from the bag out of reach is covered, but oversliding out of reach is not, so why not use 9.01(c) on this if the end result is the same?

[Edited by DG on Jun 11th, 2004 at 09:53 PM]

[Kaliix]

There is no reason to use 9.01(c) on an overslide of second base. The term overslide is clearly defined in the Official Rules. If the runner can maintain contact with the base, the slide is legal.

Official Rules: 2.00 Definition of Terms

OVERSLIDE (or OVERSLIDING) is the act of an offensive player when his slide to a base, other than when advancing from home to first base, is with such momentum that he loses contact with the base.

Originally posted by DG

Or like when a runner's helmet falls off his head and interferes with a fielder who is fielding a ground ball, or when a runner overslides 2B to break up a DP and ends up so far away from the bag he can't reach. These are two cases I have already mentioned were good cases to use 9.01(c). It's not for use so I can rule on something I don't like. I don't care whether the runner's helmet falls off and interferes with a fielder fielding a ground ball. But in understanding the definition of interference I think it qualifies, but is not covered by the rules. Sliding away from the bag out of reach is covered, but oversliding out of reach is not, so why not use 9.01(c) on this if the end result is the same?

[Edited by DG on Jun 11th, 2004 at 09:53 PM]

[David B]

Originally posted by DG

Or like when a runner's helmet falls off his head and interferes with a fielder who is fielding a ground ball, or when a runner overslides 2B to break up a DP and ends up so far away from the bag he can't reach. These are two cases I have already mentioned were good cases to use 9.01(c). It's not for use so I can rule on something I don't like. I don't care whether the runner's helmet falls off and interferes with a fielder fielding a ground ball. But in understanding the definition of interference I think it qualifies, but is not covered by the rules. Sliding away from the bag out of reach is covered, but oversliding out of reach is not, so why not use 9.01(c) on this if the end result is the same?

[Edited by DG on Jun 11th, 2004 at 09:53 PM]

I'm not going to debate the helmet issue although I'd still not be using 9.01(c), but as far as the slide, this has been thoroughly discussed on another thread.

Bottom line, it is covered by the rules.

Thanks
David

[GarthB]

Originally posted by akalsey
How about some discussion on when to invoke 9.01(c)?

The view of some umps (on this board and elsewhere) seems to be that 9.01(c) is there so that when something happens in a game that they don't like, they can impose a penalty of some sort.

My viewpoint is that 9.01(c) is there to allow the ump to provide a ruling on those one in a million occurances that are not covered by the rulebook. Like when the bird flew into the path of the Randy Johnson fastball, killing the bird and causing the pitch to drop to the ground.

This play was already covered in the NAPBL.

[akalsey]

Originally posted by GarthB
This play was already covered in the NAPBL.

Do you have the details of that handy?

[Jeremiah]

First off, I would like to introduce myself. I'm 17 and started umpiring when I was 13. I take it quite seriously, and have put a fair amount of effort and cash into educational material and uniforms/equipment. And for those who are active at "umpire.org", I am a member over there by the name of "Jerry."

Regarding the situation when Randy Johnson drilled a bird, that is also covered in the J/R manual.

-Jeremiah

[DG]

Originally posted by GarthB

This play was already covered in the NAPBL.

I don't have an NAPBL, but curious what it says, not that it will ever happen againm, just curious. What does NAPBL say about killing birds with pitches? What does NAPBL say about killing birds with batted balls.

If I were using 9.01(c) on either I would say that birds flying is like wind blowing (ie nature) and either can make the ball move.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by GarthB

This play was already covered in the NAPBL.

Close, but the NAPBL reference addresses batted or thrown balls, not pitched balls:

4.19 BALL STRIKES BIRD OR ANIMAL
If a batted or thrown ball strikes a bird in flight or other animal on the playing field, consider the ball alive and in play the same as if it had not touched the bird or animal.

Moreover, the umpire in the Randy Johnson bird mutilation incident didn't follow the NAPBL ruling; instead of leaving the ball live, he killed it and declared no pitch.

I think it's accurate to say he invoked 9.01(c) in making that ruling.

[GarthB]

Absolutely correct Dave. You beat me to it. I was working from my fragile memory and forgot that the NAPBL covered a thrown and batted ball. I just got my NAPBL out and was about to do my mea culpa.

I should have remembered this better. My son invoked it in a game a couple of years ago when a throw home hit a dog that just wandered on the field. His ruling resulted in the winning run scoring in the bottom of the last of a tied game.

I remembered he made the call, scored the run and immediately and wisely, headed for the car.

[Edited by GarthB on Jun 14th, 2004 at 02:09 AM]

[akalsey]

Ok, so other than bird strikes, where should 9.01(c) be invoked? Has anyone ever actually used it and what was the situation?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by akalsey
Ok, so other than bird strikes, where should 9.01(c) be invoked? Has anyone ever actually used it and what was the situation?

Here are two plays given by Jim Evans in his Baseball Rules Annotated, as examples of how and when 9.01(c) would be invoked:

---

Situations: Runners on first and third...one out. The pitcher delivers as the runner from first attempts to steal
second. The catcher fires a white protective sponge that he usually wears inside his mitt toward second...then easily picks off a baffled runner at third with the real ball. What's your ruling?

RULING: Nullify the out and eject the catcher for confusing the offensive team and making a travesty of the game.

Runner on 1st...3-2count...l out. The runner is off and running on the pitch. The batter takes "Ball 4" but the catcher throws to the 2nd baseman covering. The throw is in time to nab the runner who is unaware of the batter's status. The umpire erroneously calls the runner out. The runner gets up and advances toward his dugout. Realizing the runner should have been awarded 2nd, the 2nd baseman tags him again while off the base. Does this out stand?
RULING: The runner stepped off the base as a result of the umpire's improper call. This is a correctable umpire's
error, and the umpire should nullify the out. Though not covered specifically in these rues, this rule is in accordance with the "doctrine of common sense and fair play."

---

A couple of more examples - in youth ball an ejection for unsafe play, such as for recklessly throwing a bat after hitting the ball, is done under the authority of 9.01(c). If a fielder simply pushes a runner off a base he is occupying, and then tags him out, your nullification of that action would be pursuant to your authority under 9.01(c).

[Kaliix]

In the Koufax league games that I have been doing lately (and even at the high school level) I have continually have the first batter of an inning come up to the edge of the dirt area around home plate and stand there trying to time the opposing pitchers pitches.

There is a rule about this in FED, but it is not covered in OBR. I routinely send them back to the on-deck circle. I believe it is something I am allowed to do under 9.01(c).

When a coach asks why, I give them one or all of the following reasons:

1)It gives an advantage to the offense.
2)In upper levels of baseball, it can buy you a ball up and in, if not at you.
3)Pitchers can be wild.
4)It's not allowed in High School anyways.

And honestly, I think it's considered kinda bush league.