![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
6.07(b)(2) nullify any advance or score made because of a ball batted by the improper batter or because of the improper batter’s advance to first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise. NOTE: If a runner advances, while the improper batter is at bat, on a stolen base, balk, wild pitch or passed ball, such advance is legal. |
|
|||
I don't think you can apply BOO in this situation because when such a situation occurs it is neither the place of the umpire or official scorer or any other form of game management to point out BOO. In this case it sounds like the umpire pointed out what some are calling a BOO situation (I'm not in the camp of trying to apply BOO). So for those calling for a BOO, the situation is now compounded because if it is explained to the offensive coach as BOO, I'm sure he could lodge a protest on the grounds of the umpire pointing out the BOO (not his place to do so). Just some thoughts on why it shouldn't be ruled that way. Feel free to rip my arguement.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
(For example, I don't say "Ball Four, take your base!" But I know umpires that say "Ball" on ball 4 and then let the batter go to first. We have not "awarded" first as a result of a positive act (saying "take your base!"), but we have definitely "awarded" it by saying "ball" and letting the batter go to first. Here the umpires awarded first to the batter by saying "balk" and letting the batter go to first.) IMO, the error this umpires made was NOT failing to notice that the wrong batter was at the plate, the error is that he let the batter acquire first base as a result of a balk call. This is more than a difference in semantics. Though he might not have said "balk, batter go to first," he certainly allowed it to happen. Your base coach example is irrelevant. There are rules in OBR, PBUC Manual and MLBUM that clearly state that only players listed on the line-up card can play in a game. There are rules (interpretations) that specifically address what to do should a person not listed as a player on the line-up card be discovered in the game. There is no requirement in that situation that a protest be timely lodged; the umpire on his own initiative can address it at any time. In other words, a whole different set of interpretations directly address your proposed coaches situation...and they do not apply to this situation. And there are clearly no rules that directly address the situation in this thread. Again, the language of the rulebook is clear: the onus is on the defense to properly "catch" (appeal/protest) the offense "cheating" (by mistake or intentionally). The onus is NOT on the offense to "self-report" any violations. This same theory applies to an umpire's misapplication of the rules. The onus is on the "offended" or "injured" team to bring to the umpire's attention (protest) immediately, or else they are forced to live with the consequences. Unfortunately, under OBR, one's sense of "fairness" often has nothing to do with determining the proper out come of a third world play. With all that said, as I mentioned above, in a game of 9- and 10- year olds, I might be more inclined to do what others have suggested (take R1 off the base and nullify the two pitches)...but not with "shaving age" players. Last edited by lawump; Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:49am. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson |
|
|||
Quote:
Too easy for words. |
|
|||
Quote:
I don't know LL...but still in your situation, at least under FED, if the coach was a legal player, the coach (now player) would be either an "unannounced substitute" or an "illegal substitute". Again, in OBR and FED, there are rules that directly cover this situation...which is not true for the original situation given in this thread. And if I remember my FED rules correctly (I've been doing all OBR since mid-May) an illegal substitute can be discovered and dealt with at anytime...not just immediately before the next pitch, play or attempted play. Thus, I don't think this is a good example in support of your argument. Again, I can't speak for LL. |
|
|||
Hmmm,
"Your base coach example is irrelevant. There are rules in OBR, PBUC Manual and MLBUM that clearly state that only players listed on the line-up card can play in a game."
With all respect: This appears to me to be an incorrect statement. ONLY in professional baseball are there rules concerning the listing of players and eligibility. We all know that the names of "subs" in all games, except for professional games, are on the card at the will of the coach. They are done as a "polite" gesture by rule. OBR does not require names of any players other than the starters for the game. The base coach example may be ridiculous but appears to be possible under the ruling that some have encouraged. In FEDeration baseball an illegal sub, as in this situation, becomes legal even if not announced. Regards, |
|
|||
Quote:
I already posted that I was "picturing" a pro game in my head...my bad! Pro leagues require the names be listed...not youth leagues playing under OBR. As you pointed out about OBR not saying anything about this, that is why I used the word "interpretation" (to suggest a league or PBUC rule...as opposed to OBR). My fault for having a narrow mind! |
|
|||
Tee,
My reading of "illegal substitute" under FED rule (3-1-1) allows for him to be removed "whenever" he is discovered...not just before the next play, attempted play, or pitch. That is, he doesn't become legal just because he's not announced and one of those three things happens. Furthemore, my reading of the FED rules allows for either the umpire or offended team to catch the mistake...not just the offended team as in OBR. However, I concede that if neither the offended team nor the umpires catch it then yes, in a sense, he'll become "legal" because his actions will be allowed to stand. Please correct me if I am wrong... However, I now admit after having read rule 3-1-1 that McCrowder's situation of a base coach/player just stepping onto an unoccupied first base does not neatly fit into the FED's definitions of what constitutes an "illegal sub" as Fed defines it. However, I think I can apply this rule by analogy. I think because FED has shown an intent to NOT put the onus on the offended team to catch an illegal substitute in a timely manner (umpire can catch it and can be caught "whenever")...which is different than the general spirit of the OBRs, that extending the illegal substitute rule to cover McCrowder's situation under FED rules is more appropriate than saying that a proper protest is required. Again, they are two very different rule books with very different "spirits". Again, I have no opinion as to LL. I know as much about LL rules as any other dad watching their son play. I will add that my American Legion games do require all substitutes to be listed on the line-up card (don't know if this is a state adoption or national). (Frankly, I don't care, I just know that's the rule in my AL games!)...which is probably another reason why I initially had that in my head. |
|
|||
To be fair:
I just read in J/R that there are no interpretations (as of at least 1995 when my J/R was published) that state what to do if an "illegal substitution" occurs. That is, a player "re-enters" a game. The manual just says do what is "fair". ARRRRHHHH... So, I guess that in McCrowder's situation, in a professional game, if the base coach was (1) listed on the line-up card as a player and (2) already been in the game and substituted for and (3) then pulls the stunt of stepping on to first as a runner without being immediately noticed: Then....I'm screwed!!!! What the hell is fair? I will guarantee one thing: The base coach/illegal substitute is getting tossed, and his manager is going with him on GP's. Very interesting thread. This does nothing, however, to change my opinion as to the awarding of first on the balk that was in the original post. |
|
|||
Hmmm,
As threads go this has been enjoyable. I find it intersting that even with a few of us that seldom see eye-to-eye there has been no name calling and insults.
We have proven that we "can" successfully discuss something without gut reaction insults. Now with that being said: Thank you all for your opinions. Like many of you I could stop and criticize the umpires for their errors but that is not what the thread was really about. True. None of us would allow this to happen -- but IT DID! Now the thread was really about "what can be done", an out-of-control TC and how umpires deal with a third world play that really happened. The play was brought to me after the fact -- people wanted clarification of what "shoulda, coulda, woulda" to the situation. You have all added wonderful information. I thank you all. Regards, |
|
|||
Quote:
Tee...I do believe that this thread may be an example of a message board being used at its very best. This has been a very enjoyable academic, if not legal-like, discussion...that obviously happened somewhere in the real world. Pretty cool if you ask me. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Correctable Error | eventnyc | Basketball | 20 | Wed Feb 15, 2006 04:20pm |
correctable error? | Snake~eyes | Basketball | 8 | Sun Apr 03, 2005 09:29pm |
Correctable error | som44 | Basketball | 9 | Mon Jan 26, 2004 02:51pm |
correctable error? | cardinalfan | Basketball | 9 | Tue Jan 20, 2004 05:59pm |
correctable error? | zac | Basketball | 7 | Thu Oct 10, 2002 08:52am |