Do you count the run?

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

NIump50,

Despite your "belief", this IS, in fact, "continuous action".

From J/R (to my knowledge, the only authoritative source which defines the concept):





Despite your deep understanding of the rules and their proper application evident in this and other posts (res ipsa loquitor), I am more inclined to subscribe to the opposite opinion espoused by J/R:



Though I would certainly concur that the "...proper batter is out on appeal."

JM

Perhaps I mispoke on the 'continuous action' point, but for the purpose of this call they are two distinct and separate actions. R3s attempt to score has nothing to do with BOO. The defense will not be penalized and the out stands.
I see well qualified people on both sides of this issue and IMHO J/R is not conclusive on this sitch.
You have to remember
1. Most rules have been made and evolved over the years to address specific situations and issues, which is why many rules also have many exceptions as well.
2. It would be very difficult to write a rule and have every exception and situation covered from the get go. Which is why J/R comes out with new editions, with new interpretations and new cases on an annual basis.
3. This is why rule 9 was made.
4. This is why umpires need to be more than rule robots and have some common sense.

We can discuss the fine points of this situation and I believe reasonable men can reasonably disagree. If every rule was already perfectly written and perfectly interpreted your precious J/R would be out of business.

For me, in this situation, where I believe there is ambiguity I am going to approach it with my sense of baseball logic.
1. I'm not going to penalize the defense because the offense can't read the lineup card.
2. I take outs wherever I can get them.(It's the real world, deal with it)
3. Whenever in doubt, refer to #2.
OK maybe 2&3 are a tad flippant. But until a definitive interpretation to the contrary is produced I stand by #1.

And may I say, it's a good thing you are a coach and not an umpire.
A rules geek ump that enforces every rule by the letter of the law, more times than not causes more problems than he solves.

I also understand your condescending and know it all attitude as evidenced in your response to my post. You're a coach, I expect nothing less.

[greymule]

Posted by BigUmp56 on the March 6 thread:

From the J/R:

In the bottom of the seventh there are no outs, Adams is at first, and Leo is due to bat. However King steps into the box. A pitch is ball four and goes wild past the catcher. The catcher retrieves the ball and throws to the first baseman for an unsuccessful play on the Batter-Runner (King) who rounded first base. The defense appeals that the offense has batted out of order:

1) The catchers throw was a part of the continuous action, and should not be interpreted as a post-continuous action play and the appeal can be sustained. The proper batter (Leo) is out. King is removed from first base. The umpire must decide whether Adams’ advance was due to King’s award or due to the wildness of the pitch (i.e., would Adams have advanced if the pitch had been ball three?). Adams is allowed to remain at second base with one out and Cooper is the proper batter.

[Underlining is mine.]

[UmpJM]

NIump50,

Curiously enough, I find myself in nearly complete agreement with everything you said in your above post.

The "exception", if I understand you correctly, would be to your assertion that you would let additional outs obtained by the defense on the play stand upon a proper appeal by the offense.

Oddly enough, this would be the correct ruling in a game played under FED rules (Fed 7-1-2b Exception), but an incorrect ruling in a game played under OBR rules (PBUC Section 2.3).

The sarcasm evident in my response to your earlier post was elicited by your failure to provide any support for your assertions in terms of rule or interpretation citations, or even any coherent "train of thought" as to why you might believe those assertions to be correct. And the fact that you "misspoke" in making your initial assertion.

JM

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by greymule

Posted by BigUmp56 on the March 6 thread:

From the J/R:

In the bottom of the seventh there are no outs, Adams is at first, and Leo is due to bat. However King steps into the box. A pitch is ball four and goes wild past the catcher. The catcher retrieves the ball and throws to the first baseman for an unsuccessful play on the Batter-Runner (King) who rounded first base. The defense appeals that the offense has batted out of order:

1) The catchers throw was a part of the continuous action, and should not be interpreted as a post-continuous action play and the appeal can be sustained. The proper batter (Leo) is out. King is removed from first base. The umpire must decide whether Adams’ advance was due to King’s award or due to the wildness of the pitch (i.e., would Adams have advanced if the pitch had been ball three?). Adams is allowed to remain at second base with one out and Cooper is the proper batter.

[Underlining is mine.]

So Coach, how exactly does the above interp square up with your quote below?


"So if the offense does something illegal and we are going to disallow any outs obtained by the defense during the continuous action of the play on which the improper batter completed his at bat, I don't see why anyone who understands the rules of baseball would think we would allow the offense to gain an advantage by benefitting from any advances on the play."

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

NIump50,

Curiously enough, I find myself in nearly complete agreement with everything you said in your above post.

The "exception", if I understand you correctly, would be to your assertion that you would let additional outs obtained by the defense on the play stand upon a proper appeal by the offense.

Oddly enough, this would be the correct ruling in a game played under FED rules (Fed 7-1-2b Exception), but an incorrect ruling in a game played under OBR rules (PBUC Section 2.3).

The sarcasm evident in my response to your earlier post was elicited by your failure to provide any support for your assertions in terms of rule or interpretation citations, or even any coherent "train of thought" as to why you might believe those assertions to be correct. And the fact that you "misspoke" in making your initial assertion.

JM

If it was mere sarcasm I would've more than likely ignored it.
I wasn't aware that lack of support for an opinion was grounds for throwing out proper decorum.

[BigUmp56]

NI:

I think you'll find that The Official Forum, unlike some of the other umpiring forums, has a very knowledgeable membership. We tend to look for authoritative opinions when we weigh in on a play. Most of the members here don't subscribe to the "because I say so" school of thought. I'm not going to say whether you're right or wrong on this subject. I will tell you, however, that if you really want to support your positions you should post case plays and their rulings specific to the play at hand. You'll have a lot more credibility here if you do.


Tim.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by NIump50

So Coach, how exactly does the above interp square up with your quote below?

NIump50,

I would have to say that it does not "square up" at all and, in fact, supports the position I have argued against in the discussion on this thread. (That is, it supports the position that the non-forced R3's run should or could stand on the Ball 4 wild pitch.)

It still strikes me as "odd" and inconsistent that the proper ruling would allow runs to stand (benefit to the offense) in one situation, while negating outs that were obtained (again, benefit to the offense) in another, when it the offense that is guilty of the infraction.

JM

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

NI:

I think you'll find that The Official Forum, unlike some of the other umpiring forums, has a very knowledgeable membership. We tend to look for authoritative opinions when we weigh in on a play. Most of the members here don't subscribe to the "because I say so" school of thought. I'm not going to say whether you're right or wrong on this subject. I will tell you, however, that if you really want to support your positions you should post case plays and their rulings specific to the play at hand. You'll have a lot more credibility here if you do.


Tim.

I agree, and your point is well taken.
In this particular thread, rules and case plays had already been offered for both sides and I was weighing in on the side I felt was accurate based on my sense of logic.
I wasn't presenting it as authoratative and final, simply my take on a difficult interp.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

NIump50,

I would have to say that it does not "square up" at all and, in fact, supports the position I have argued against in the discussion on this thread. (That is, it supports the position that the non-forced R3's run should or could stand on the Ball 4 wild pitch.)

It still strikes me as "odd" and inconsistent that the proper ruling would allow runs to stand (benefit to the offense) in one situation, while negating outs that were obtained (again, benefit to the offense) in another, when it the offense that is guilty of the infraction.

JM

If the rule intends for that to be the case, I agree, it is odd. I would not rule that way, as stated before I would allow the out.
I think that when ultimately defined the interpretation will have to be consistent.