A few years back, I umpired several games for the same team in a 40+ adult league, and every time this one guy would hit a routine grounder to an infielder, he would turn and run to the dugout. Everybody always got a kick out of that!:D

http://media.scout.com/media/image/19/193123.gif

May I?
 

Here's a twist...

My take is we need to judge the intent of the batter-runner. There is no legal way for the offense to CONCEDE an out without being played upon. In T's play the BR is clearly cheating the defense out of a game ending double play. Desertion of efforts to advance cannot be intentional. The concepts of abandonment and desertion are not strategies for the offense. They are methods to save umpires the time (potentially infinite) of waiting for a runner who thought he was out to try an advance. In T's "oranges" play, the DP stands, game over.

In the original "apples" play, it would be hard for me to picture the real possibility of a BR who clearly thought he was out (depressed, mopey) making it to the dugout before the triple play could have been completed. However, I do believe that the BR could be called out, and in this particular case, with the BR truly believing he was out and not trying to cheat the defense (pant, pant), you could make a case for calling him out the moment he entered his bench area and thusly removing the force plays on the runners on base. Still, in continuous action with multiple runners and the play as you describe it, no one will be watching the BR and the timing of his entering the dugout would be next to impossible to ascertain. Therefore the practical ruling would be to call the play as it apparently was...triple play stands.

Babble, babble, babble.

D-Man

Re: May I?
 

But in the original play that started this thread, I think it WOULD be very easy to ascertain the timing and it appeared that there was no question that the BR *did*, in fact, enter the dugout before the force outs were recorded.

Remember, the BR hit a flyball into the outfield that was dropped. The BR, thinking it was caught, went to the dugout while the outfielder chased down the ball to throw it back into the infield to begin the force outs.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

A sloppy solution
 

I've enjoyed following this thread and the academic arguments that it provided. Perhaps a sloppy solution would work for this apparent whole in the rules/interps.

Can we all agree that defense shouldn't have the responsibility for a) keeping tabs on when BR entered the dugout and b) having faith that the umpires would know when he did, made the out signal immediately, and understood the significance of the call (force play removal).

This is the perfect opportunity to just "make the expected call" and not remove the force play.

If OC argued that the force was removed (he's either a very sharp coach or a cheater), then I would say, This is the right call coach. (and perhaps a little white lie if need be) I don't have him entering the d/u until after the force plays were made. Truth is coach, I'm not sure when he entered the d/u, but I'm not going to reward the offense for not running out a batted ball when I'm not sure of the timing. If he says that I blew that call. I'd admit that he may be right, but the force play stands. It's sloppy, but given the whole in the rule, it should be the expected call.

I don't think that I'd be in dooky too deep with my supervisor for possible missing the timing of BR entering the d/u but making the expected (IMO, right) call.

My question is, in a two man crew, who is actually watching the BR enter the dugout on the double-play ball? The plate guy has to watch for the interference at second, and the base guy is following the flight of the ball.
Pretty easy for me to bang the double play here.

JJ

A very practical comment but not one that ultimately answers the essence of the original question; Does the BR entering the dugout, IN FACT, remove force plays the moment he enters the dugout, notwithstanding whether the umpire notices it or not?

That's the whole issue!

And, if you read the very first post in this thread, it would very difficult for the umpire to claim he didn't know the timing.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

This has been a very insightfull thread! IMO- this is the type of discussion that makes these forums so educational.

As it appears there is no definitive source that gives more clarity on this issue, I will tell you what I think I will now do if this ever happens to me, based on the responses you've all given.

1) Once a batter steps into the dugout, I have an out. I'll buy in to the Roder interpretation that the batter can be called out for desertion on a batted ball before touching first base.

2) Although I have the batter out, I'm holding off making that call until all continuing action has relaxed, keeping the force intact.

3) If challenged, I'd just tell the offensive manager that I didn't see exactly when his batter entered the dugout, and in my judgement, it was after the DP was recorded.


Tim.

I think this is probably a very practical, if not totally correct, way of handling the situation.

However, I think you can accomplish the same thing without having to resort to your Step #3. Why have, as part of your solution, a confession of your failing to discern something that an inquiring coach finds critical?

Since there is really nothing the coach can use as a reference to challenge your ruling, you might as well characterize your way of handling it as "standard."

I would change your Step #3 to ...

3) If challenged, I'd just tell the offensive manager that the "out" for his batter's desertion is recorded after all continuous action has ended. The defense should not be burdened with sorting out the complex ramifications of the batter's desertion.

This way you don't have to admit that you failed to observe something and the manager will certainly not be able to challenge the "accuracy" of your ruling since he will have no ready reference to challenge you ... not even a rulebook!

Hell, we're all umpires and even WE toiled with the ruling. The manager will certainly not fair any better. In fact, he'll probably be impressed - although not pleased.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Nov 13th, 2005 at 11:12 AM]

Neat vs Sloppy
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling
3) If challenged, I'd just tell the offensive manager that the "out" for his batter's desertion is recorded after all continuous action has ended. The defense should not be burdened with sorting out the complex ramifications of the batter's desertion.

This way you don't have to admit that you failed to observe something and the manager will certainly not be able to challenge the "accuracy" of your ruling since he will have no ready reference to challenge you ... not even a rulebook!

I like this explanation much better than my sloppy one. I'd rather make this argument than immediately calling BR out when entering the dugout and picking up the shi#y end of the stick by removing the force.

Good thread folks.

Forgive me, but WHO CARES if it answers the question? We have 5 pages on a third world play and JJ's answer is practical and realistic.

I'm not seeing it, and neither is my partner. We'd have a DP and that would be the end of it.

And I have to disagree. I find this type of thread to be mental masturbation at best and something that hurts novice umpires more than helps at worst.

Then I'll disagree with YOU!

Although the initial scenario has a Third World Play flavor to it ... the fact remains, IT *DID* HAPPEN!

The value of this thread, if nothing else, has taught "novice umpires" a few things they may have not known before.

1. Abandonment does not apply to runners who have not reached 1st. (I don't think a lot of "novice umpires" understand that. If they followed this thread, they would now know.)

2. There is a thing called "desertion" that applies to a BR. The authoritative opinion on desertion is that the BR is *out* once he enters the dugout. (I don't consider myself a "novice umpire" and I wasn't aware of that authoritative opinion. Now I know. Prior to this thread I would have probably allowed the BR to rectify his mistake if it was done in a timely manner.)

3. Another thing to be learned in this thread by a "novice umpire" is that even the most knowledgeable and experienced umpires sometimes have difficulty reaching a consensus on certain basic issues. So, he (the "novice umpire") shouldn't feel like there is always an easy answer for everything.

4. Finally, it has to be asked; At what level of play would some of these items being discussed ever be an issue; high or low level? Clearly, the answer is LOW level. And what kind of umpires would likely be calling these low level games? ... NOVICE UMPIRES!

Higher level umpires often denigrate these type of discussions either out of naivete or the arrogance that such things could "never happen in one of my games" - so they scoff at the entire discussion - as Rich is.

And then another Doug Eddings is born.

I truly believe that valuable things can often be gleaned from seemingly unlikely and Third World Plays.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Got to agree with you, Rich. If ANY umpire blows this call once in twenty years, and I don't know how that is possible because there is NO correct answer. Then it will definitely be another twenty years before they see again!!!!!!

Probably trying to convince a majority of the "green house effect" will be much easier, and definitely more practical.

What's new pussycat?
 

Okay then, you guys come up with something more relevant to discuss. If this subject sucks so bad, give us something new to talk about. I can't think of anything new under the sun myself. I've heard just about every sea story known to umpiring, but I'm willing to hear one more...

http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/O...31_elefant.GIF

Re: What's new pussycat?
 

Check out the thrown bat scenario.

I can name that song in four pages.

Actually, it is a teaser for my lets sit in the chair and watch tv, brain cells.

Then again, its a nice day here in the NE. 18 Holes will do me good.

Catch ya later.

PS: Cute Elephant