Correctable Error?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by LDUB

How about this....on the second pitch the batter hits a pop up. Infield fly is called, and the ball falls uncaught, no runners advance or are put out. As the next batter is coming to the plate the other team's manager points out the "illegal" R1. What now?

See my post immediately above. Because the wrong batter was up, any actions related to his at-bat must be ignored. Return the "balked" batter to the plate and resume.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Because the wrong batter was up, any actions related to his at-bat must be ignored. Return the "balked" batter to the plate and resume.

Any actions as a result of an action by the improper batter are nullified. If a runner steals while there is an improper batter at bat, the steal is okay.
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.

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

Any actions as a result of an action by the improper batter are nullified. If a runner steals while there is an improper batter at bat, the steal is okay.
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.

You're citing a rule that is not applicable here. We're not talking about batting out of order; rather, we're addressing a batter who shouldn't have reached the base because his at-bat wasn't completed.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I'm flummoxed trying to understand why anyone would assume from the OP that PU awarded anything. I suppose if that was actually the case, we can't BOO him, and probably we've gone past the point where he can be removed from the base (protest too late and all that).

But this was (to my reading) NOT a case where an umpire erred. Inattentive? Yes. Failed to preventatively umpire? Yes. Buy's the round that night? YES. But what error did he make other than not noticing the wrong batter at the plate.

This can truly be simplified down to - get the runner off the base and either A) let the two pitches count, with all that implies, or B) wipe out the pitches.

Your logic that the runner can't be removed because the defense didn't protest would also mean that a team whose basecoach stepped his way onto first base (or THIRD base!) would be a brand spanking new legitimate runner if he managed to stand there without defense noticing for just 1 pitch. That's obscene.

And think about the interest of fairness here. If anyone erred here, it was the batter for getting on base when he didn't belong. Leaving him there doesn't ring as "fair". Nullifying the pitches doesn't seem fair to the defense ... after all, they didn't do anything wrong. Use 9.01c to at least get that batter off the base. I can live with either solution on the 2 pitches.

And thank the baseball gods that the improper batter didn't hit one of those pitches or get walked (with bases improperly loaded) before this was noticed.

First, I don't think "awarded" requires a "positive" act on the part of the umpires. That is the umpire doesn't have to say "that's a balk, batter go to first." Rather, the mere calling of a balk and ALLOWING the batter to go to first as a result constitutes an "award".

(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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by lawump

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.

It's only irrelevant if you make assumptions. I was considering a legal player, in uniform, set up in the coach's box. He's not due up for a while, but he's in the lineup. After noticing that no one was looking his way, he steps on base, and stays there for a legal pitch. By your logic, since no one protested or noticed, you would leave him there. I say that's nonsense.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Tim C

PWL wrote:

"How are you going to say he batted out of order? I've heard of umpires losing count and awarding a base with only three balls. I suppose the fair thing to do here would be to bring the batter back to the plate with his original count, leave runners at second and third. Erase last two pitches as neither team gained an advantage and no one advanced. Unless their is some precedent or rule I'm not aware of, I know of no better way to handle it except my fool proof fake heart attack. Makes them feel sorry for me and forget what just happened.

For all the criticism I have leveled at PWL in the past I would like to say that this may be his finest post.

Crisp and clear (like a good strike call) and also funny.

If we recognize clearly that the PU errored and should be shot and then then be dipped in tar and feathers we need to move on:

Can we do what some suggest? By rule can we take pitches off the board and in fact have a "do over?"

Regards,

Yes. This isn't basketball. Bring him back with the correct count. Throw everything else away.

Too easy for words.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

It's only irrelevant if you make assumptions. I was considering a legal player, in uniform, set up in the coach's box. He's not due up for a while, but he's in the lineup. After noticing that no one was looking his way, he steps on base, and stays there for a legal pitch. By your logic, since no one protested or noticed, you would leave him there. I say that's nonsense.

In a way I did assume...when picturing this situation in my head I was picturing it on the pro level...where the base coach would definitely be in uniform, but clearly not a player on the line-up card.

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.

[Tim C]

"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,

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"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.

Regards,

Tee,

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!

[lawump]

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.

[lawump]

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.

[Tim C]

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,

[UMP25]

But the real question remains: Did anybody beat the heck out of the Tournament Director?

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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,

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.