Correctable Error?
 

OK, just got involved in this one.

Age of players doesn't matter (but they are 9 and 10).

Bases Loaded -- One Out!

Pitcher balks,

All runners advance BUT batter also jogs to first.

No one notices (I know bad, but it is what happened):

After two pitches are thrown the PU recognizes that the bases are still juiced and figures out what happened.

He calls time and returns (illegal R1) to bat:

TD comes out of crowd and says after a pitch was thrown the error cannot be corrected and over rules the PU placing (Batter) R1 back to first.

Any takers?

Regards

zzzzzzzzzzzz......
 

Is this before or after the umpire comes out of his coma?:eek:

Tell that Umpire to stay home next game :D As far as correctable, This might go under batting out of order too. However, I'd say illeagal R1 is up to bat, count is the same as i was before he went to first. Sounds like someone had a brain cramp. :rolleyes:

Oh Lordy, this is the big one....Elizabeth, I'm comin' to join ya honey!
http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/i...sason1-2_1.jpg

Ya Big Dummy!!!

Ok,
 

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,

There are so many things egregiously wrong with this situation that I hardly know where to begin. In no particular order:

1) 9-10 yr. olds don't balk. I've never seen it, and this case illustrates why no one else should see it either. And if you see one, you have to see them all. Let the circus begin.

2) The batter-runner inexplicably ended up at 1B. Brain fart of the collective baseball unconscious.

3) TD entered the field to overturn the umpire. If he would have started umpiring my game, he would have finished it, because I would have been in the car.

4) Tee is asking about a LL situation. This is surely the end of life as we know it.

As for the ruling, it sounds to me like a do-over from the point of the brain fart, followed by the obligatory faux myocardial infarction.

1) There are most definitely balks at the 9-10 yr old level. If you don't call them in a Mustang League game, you won't hear the end of it, I guarantee you. The pitchers at that level are expected to know what is and isn't a balk by the time any tournament play begins, and the umpires are expected to call balks.

2) Agreed.

3) The TD can stop the game to correct an incorrect ruling. In tournament play, they try to settle protestable situations on the field before continuing. The last thing they want is to have to replay any games on an upheld protest.

4) Again, this is not a Little League situation, as there are no balks in Little League ® baseball at the 9-10 yr old level. This is obviously an organization that has leadoffs, balks, etc.

Cmon - all 9-year old baseball is not LL!

PWL - I think you could defend your solution using 9.01c if necessary.

Personally, I would have handled two things differently.

First - to the TD - depending on the manner he approached the fence I would either quietly or rudely tell him to go F himself (and depending on his manner, I might even use that word). TD's have NO BUSINESS interjecting themselves into any game situations unless a protest comes up. Period. Ever.

Second - to the sitch at hand.

I don't know that we can blame PU for what happened and just call a do-over. Tee -- what was the count when the original balk occurred? Since the phantom R1 never left first or affected a play, simply get him off the base. Now, the original batter (phantom R1) is the correct batter. The 2 pitches that came in were essentially to a batter batting out of order (just as if the proper batter had gone to the dugout and been replaced by the next batter, and no one noticed). I think you have to count the two pitches. If this completed the batters turn at bat, then you have a true BOO... if not, simply put the two pitches on the board after whatever count existed at the time of the Balk, and get the right batter to the plate.

Note that if more had occurred, such as R1 being involved in a play, or a BB which should have been with R2 and R3, but appeared to all to be with bases loaded, you have a TRUE CF, and 9.01c is likely your ONLY way out (other than the admittedly humorous Redd Foxx defense).

No. No no no no no, a thousand times no.

The TD is an organizational spectator with off-field authority, and can not, of his own volition, stop diddly. I agree with C'Mon that if he insisted on making his way to the field, I hope he brought equipment.

Yes, you settle protests on the field in tournaments ... but there is absolutely no hint of a protest in Tee's OP, and I guarantee he would have mentioned it had there been one. Sounds like TD inserted himself of his own volition, when he disagreed with the PU's decision. No protest from either team. Completely uncalled for.

Stuff like this happens in the real world of armature umpiring.

Put the batter back in the box with the original count.

Let everyone yell at you for a couple of moments (you deserve it).

Then get the game moving, and learn from it.

Hmmm? BOO?
 

I think mcrowder has something here.

What was the count to B1 at time of the balk? I think the next 2 pitches should go onto his plate appearence. B1 is still the proper batter because 6.04 A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner. Therefore, B1 hasn't legally completed his time at bat.
If either of those pitches legally complete B1's plate appearence (while B2 is in his place) we have BOO by 6.07(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place.

But if the infraction is not picked up before the first legal pitch to B2, then B2 is the new proper batter by 6.07(c) When an improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and a pitch is made to the next batter of either team before an appeal is made, the improper batter thereby becomes the proper batter, and the results of his time at bat become legal.

Finally, my 2 cents on the TD, stay in the stands. It's not your job to head off possible problems and in this case, possibly stop the defense from gainig an out by appeal.

I find myself compelled to agree with PWL's suggestion of putting the R1 back at the plate with the count he had prior to the balk, essentially nullifying the two pitches that occurred between the balk and somebody waking up to the fact that the Batter had improperly taken 1B.

This situation, a Batter taking 1B prior to completing his at bat, is a "...point not specifically covered..." in the rules, and, therefore, 9.01(c) is the relevant rule - the umpire has the authority to rule as he thinks best.

While I could see treating this as an unusual BOOT as a "supportable" approach, it still leaves hanging the question of what to do with the "improper" R1, and it does not seem consistent with the intent and spirit of the BOOT rule.

To me, this situation is MOST analagous to the umpire improperly putting the ball back into play - as in a "dead ball/hidden ball" trick attempt when the pitcher gets on/astride the rubber without the ball after the ball has been made dead. When the R? steps off the base and is tagged by the F? who has the ball, NOTHING happened. Even though the umpire may have pointed/called the ball into play, the conditions were not met for doing so.

Likewise, the BRD has an extensive discussion (Section #238, for those following along at home) which quotes Evans, Deary, and the J/R as supporting nullification of all action should the umpire inadvertantly put the ball in play when the defense does not have eight fielders in fair territory.

While the latter situation has a specific rule requiring that the defense meet the "eight in fair" criteria for putting the ball in play (4.03) and the situation posed does not, it seems most consistent with the intent and spirit of the rules, and the "proper" batter should definitely NOT be on 1B, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit rule stating so.

IMHO, the ruling most consistent with the spirit, intent, official interpretations, and authoritative opinions of the rules is to return the proper batter to the plate with the count he had at the time of the balk and nullify any intervening action.

And tell the TD to GTFOTF until and unless his duties require his presence there.

JM

I had a long post discussing the concepts of "appeal" "correctable umpire's error" (as that concept is introduced in JEA) and "protest". But, alas, it was too convoluted.

Trying to be more straight forward, here are my thoughts, and why I think R1 has to remain at first.

First, this play cannot result in an "appeal" by the defense (as that term is defined by J/R and JEA). An "appeal" can only be for (a) missing a base (including home plate) (b) improperly re-touching a base (tag-ups) or (c) batting out of order. None of those occured in this situation, so the defense cannot "appeal".

Second, (and however) this play is definitely "protestable". This play does not involve a judgment call. The umpires clearly awarded the B/R first base improperly; they misapplied the penalty for a balk.

However, under Rule 4.19 (JEA explanation and discussion) a protest MUST be lodged with the umpires before the next pitch, play or attempted play. Here, the defense did not protest in time. The umpire screwed up, big time, but the rules clearly put the burden on the team disadvantaged by the umpire's mistake to clearly and properly protest...or forever bear the consequences of the mistake.

Thus, the defense here lost their chance to protest and R1 must remain at first, and the umpires must continue working this game after having commited a GROSS error (not a pleasant feeling).

I would further argue, that the PU's action of placing R1 back at-bat after two-pitches had been thrown, is a protestable action...that is the offense can lodge a protest of this action.

Specifically, my argument is that once the defense's time to protest has expired without a protest being lodged, R1 must remain at first. The PU's action of putting him back at-bat, in essence, is an example of an umpire correcting a protestable error after the period for protesting has ended. Thus, I would argue that the PU has misapplied Rule 4.19 and the offense could appeal this subsequent action by the PU.

Finally, I would argue that had the umpire's caught their mistake on their own BEFORE the next pitch, play or attempted play, they could correct it under Jim Evans' doctrine of "correctable umpire's error". But I would argue that after the protest period has ended, it is too late to use this doctrine to make the correction.

As an aside: the TD should be taken behind the woodshed and shot.

For some of the reasons set forth in my prior post, I don't think your analysis and proposed result (putting R1 back at-bat and eliminating the two pitches thrown) comports with the spirit and intent of the rules to put the onus on the defense to "properly" appeal and/or protest, or forever suffer the consequences.

My understanding is that the rules drafters did not like appeals and protests, but realized they were needed. As sort of a compromise between these two positions they required that appeals and protests be made/lodged "correctly", and they clearly put the onus on the "injured" team to do so. Here, the defense missed its chance...I would suggest that the spirit of the rules would suggest that they now must live with those consequences.

(Part of me however does believe that this result should, maybe, be different for 9 and 10 year olds than for Professionals.)

But there is a possible BOO here because the batter never completed his time at bat per 6.04. He was not put out, nor did he become a runner because he did not fulfill any part of rules 6.08 and 6.09. So if B2 completes B1's time at bat, shouldnt B1 be declared out after a proper appeal? In this case, B2 would now become the proper batter with R2 and R3 and 2 outs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim C OK, just got involved in this one. Age of players doesn't matter (but they are 9 and 10). Bases Loaded -- One Out! Pitcher balks, All runners advance BUT batter also jogs to first. No one notices (I know bad, but it is what happened): After two pitches are thrown the PU recognizes that the bases are still juiced and figures out what happened. He calls time and returns (illegal R1) to bat: TD comes out of crowd and says after a pitch was thrown the error cannot be corrected and over rules the PU placing (Batter) R1 back to first. Any takers? Regards

TEE, your thread is definitely a 9.01c ruling.

First I agree with another poster. THE TD has no business being on the playing field UNLESS he is asked to. From the thread he wasn't asked to, he took it upon himself to interject in the game. Therefore, I ignore whatever he said.

I disagree with the others as far as what I would do. I would leave things as they are:

Why!

I would treat it similar to an appeal play. If a runner misses a base and the defense does not appeal before the next pitch or play - All bets off.

The aforementioned thread is similar. As soon as the defense saw B1 jogging to first on the balk call, they should have asked for time and questioned the umpires at that point.

Here we have 2 pitches thrown and the defense still has said nothing so I would leave B1 at first and continue. I believe it is said that the particpants should be aware of the rules ala the IF situation.

Pete Booth

No...the umpire's screwed up and "awarded" B1 first...we all know that this is wrong...however, I would argue that BOO can not occur as a result of an umpire improperly awarding a batter first.

Can BOO occur when a batter is "awarded" first on a base-on-balls when only three pitches have been pitched? No. Its a clear mistake by the umpire. At most the count can only be 3-0. The umpire has misapplied the rule for base-on-balls and awarded a batter first base in violation of the rules which require 4 "balls". I don't believe a BOO can now occur. The defense must "protest", which layman would label an "appeal", but it is not (for the reasons set forth in my first post on this thread).

The defense had their shot: protest before the next pitch, play or attempted play. When they failed to do so, B1 was now legally R1 and B2 is now properly at-bat.

Pete,

I agree except the defense must "protest" properly not "appeal". This is not an appealable play, rather it is a protestable play.

I was taking the OP as B1 just went to first, not that he was awarded first. I agree with you if PU erroneously awarded B1 on a balk, but I really can't imagine that being the case. I think it's more likely that PU just didn't notice the batter going to first.

If PU did award the batter first base in this sitch... he should be next behind the woodshed after the TD.

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.

My God! I can't even imagine this happening in one of my games but I'll play the part of the sleeping PU.

Me - "Time" I go to my partner (who was also sleeping) and discuss what we are going to do now.

Me - "You! (pointing to the 'illegal runner') Back to the box!"

Defensive coach - "What's going on?"

Me - "Here's the deal, coach... I screwed up! Blah, blah, blah"

Defensive coach - "You can,t..."

Me - "Stop right there coach. I'm not the only one who was asleep at the switch so I don't want to hear it. This is what is happening and that is that. Please go back to your dugout"

TD comes out of the stands and starts his serenade.

Me - "Mr. TD your input is not needed here nor is it required. When I need you for something, I shall call for you."

Send the "incorrect batter" back to the on deck area, make sure that the runners are where they are supposed to be, put the original batter in the box with the count at the time of the balk, remind my partner that we need to be awake for this one, suck it up and get on with the game. And oh yes, be prepared for an onslaught of comments from everyone in the stands - again, suck it up!

Ok, Ok, ok . . .
 

Great stuff guys:

First, the PU is like 14 or 15 years old . . .

Second, the TD entered the field without being asked . . .

Third, "Umpires asleep at the wheel:"

Going back to MY OWN game journals the "Great Tee" once did the following:

No outs,
R1
Count of 1-1 on batter.

Pitch comes as R1 is stealing second,

PU (me) calls the pitch a strike . . . catcher pops up and throws,

Ball sails through F6 into CF, R1 tries to advance, to third.

R1 is out at third and we all return to normal.

I look at my "indiclickercounter" and see the count of 1-2.

Next pitch slices the center of the strike zone and I give it the BIG "Hike Three."

Batter looks at me and says: "That was the first pitch too me!"

The last batter thought the "second" strike was strike three and went to the dugout during the plays on R1.

So Tee thinks: "Hmm, how can I get out of this one?"

So I just call "Time" and bring back the correct batter, ignore the pitch to the "incorrect batter" and puff out my chest like I knew what I was doing.

Any umpire can, in fact, fall asleep at the wheel.


Regards,

I can sure understand one umpire falling asleep at the wheel at any given time. But both umpires at the same time? How could they both not have noticed that the batter ran to first base on a balk call? Incompetent boobs!

Batting out of turn? :confused: I Think everyone on the feild was asleep during this game for that to happen

eeek. Steve i agree. This musta been a boring game or something

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?

Hmmm... I guess B1 is out on infield fly, 'illegal R1 is out for BOO, the half inning is over and R3 leads off next time around?

Good discussion. I'm in the 9.01C do-over camp. Everybody screwed up, PU, BU, Defensive coach, Catcher, Pitcher, well almost everybody, Offensive coach may have noticed and said nothing, but more likely he screwed up too.

TD needs to go back to wherever he came from.

Tim,

Because the batter improperly on first had not yet completed his at-bat--he still should be up--I would remove him from first and return the runners to the bases they were on at the time the balk was called. I would think a little 9.01(c) and "common sense and fair play" would justify such a move.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Too easy for words.

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.

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,

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!

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,

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

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.

I really believe that this is a BOO situation. I'll try to explain my thought process here.
Let's say that we have Able, #20, batting in the second slot. He steps to the plate and aquires a 2-2 count. Now skip wants to change batters for some reason. He brings in a legal sub, Baker, #21. The line up now has Baker hitting in the second slot until Skip feels like replacing him. We should all be able to agree on this.

Now as for the OP. We need to concern ourselves with the batter at bat when the balk was called. Let's call him Able, #20. Lets also say he occupies the second slot in the line up. The third spot is occupied by Baker, #21. In the OP, Able's at bat was completed (according to Rule 6.04) by Baker. This is where BOO comes in to effect. Because the second slot in the line up was completed by that player listed as occuping the third slot. The exact wording for BOO is "(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place."
According to the rules, if Able goes to first (becomes a runner) when his time at bat is not over, the player who finishes his at bat just did 1 of 2 things:
1) Became a legal un-announced substitute (if he wasn't in the line up)
2) Batted out of order (if he was listed in the line up already, which Baker was)

Now, pick apart this post and show me the error of my thinking. I'm open to having my mind changed.;)

Really? I always do this along with pointing him in the proper direction with my right hand...:D



I hope all realize this is sarcasm.

I believe Lance says the PU should at least walk him to the 45-foot line (to make sure the B/R gets to first quickly to keep the game moving) especially with an R3...although I could be wrong, I'm no Lance expert.:(

If R3 should advance, then the BU would rotate home and take the play at the plate from nearly the same spot Froemming did the other night. :)

"According to the rules, if Able goes to first (becomes a runner) when his time at bat is not over, the player who finishes his at bat just did 1 of 2 things:
1) Became a legal un-announced substitute (if he wasn't in the line up)
2) Batted out of order (if he was listed in the line up already, which Baker was)"

You'll need to show me that specific rule.

1. Able is still in the game, albeit standing in the wrong place. There is no substitute.

2. Although at bat mistakenly, he is following the order, after Able.

Carl has nailed this. This indeed ain't basketball. Bring the batter back to finish his at bat. It's that simple.

I believe the problem you're having is illustrated by your first statement. "I really believe that this is a BOO situation."

It isn't.

Okay, Let me take you through what the rules say the process of "batting" is:

6.01(a) Each player of the offensive team shall bat in the order that his name appears in his team’s batting order.

6.02 The batter shall take his position in the batter’s box promptly when it is his time at bat.

6.03 The batter's legal position shall be with both feet within the batter's box.

6.04 A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner. (Which in the OP never legally happened)

6.07 BATTING OUT OF TURN.
(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place. (Which may or may not have happened in the OP because we don't know what the count was when the balk was called.)

And as for a legal unannounced substitute:

3.08(a) If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considered as having entered the game when --
(2) If a batter, he takes his place in the batter’s box;

(b) Any play made by, or on, any of the above mentioned unannounced substitutes shall be legal.


2. Although at bat mistakenly, he is following the order, after Able.

He is not legally following Able's at bat, according to the rules, he's finishing Able's at bat.

When the proper batter (Able) is on base his spot is "skipped" and the next batter (Baker) comes to the plate.

I agree that the only two options are "bring him back and do it over" or "leave it as it is". I'd choose the former, if I could undo whatever had been done. If Baker gets a hit on one of the first pitches, or runners advance, or are put out, .... then I'd be more likely to let it stand.

We've had similar discussions, with similar answers, when R2 mistakenly becomes R3 after a TO to talk with the third base coach.

Convoluted at best.

Only two things can happen. If the umpire allows Able to stay at first, Baker is batting in order. If the umpire wakes up and brings Able back, Baker isn't batting at all. It's really simple.

I could enter the fray and prolong this thread by arguing point for point. But why? As you said, you "believe" this is a batting out of order sitiuation.

Again, read Carl's post, then Bob Jenkins'. They have it simple, neat and as correct as you will find absent a specific rule or ruling. There is no need to invent or invite further problems.

No, because upon appeal the proper batter (Able) is the batter called out for BOO.

Okay, I can live with that since, after revisiting the OP, there was never an appeal made by the defense.

In all honesty, if I were on the field when something like this happened (spare me the day), I would most likely support a do-over.

I wasn't speaking LL either, I was speaking genericly, and really just to prove a point.

How do you differentiate in your mind between the basecoach scenario - legal player wanders onto base and is not caught, and the OP - batter improperly gets onto base and is not caught. The admittedly absurd basecoach scenario is not an illegal sub (who'd he sub for?!?!). He's simply a player that managed to walk onto base without anyone noticing - which to me is not THAT far removed from the OP. I can't see leaving EITHER of these runners on base, regardless of the fact that a pitch was thrown. This is not up to the defense to appeal or protest. To avoid using the word "illegally", since there's obviously no real rule here, the player (in either sitch) is on base IMPROPERLY, and should (via 9.01c) be removed.

I think 9.01c should be used VERY rarely, but this sitch seems tailor made for it.

Another thought...
 

Why do some feel that it is o.k. to bring R1 back at-bat after the two pitches have been thrown, but that they couldn't bring him back if something had happened (hit, infield fly, whatever) on one of those two pitches?

Now, I know that the likely answer is: "well, because he's still at first, and nothing has happened (outs or hits) so its easy to bring him back."

"Easy" doesn't mean its correct. Subsequent action (pitch, play or attempted play) is subsequent action. Why should one give more weight to the next subsequent play being a double on the next pitch, than they would to the next pitch just being a called "ball" or "strike"? Where in the rules is there support for this notion (I guessing some will suggest BOO)?

As for the idea of "fairness" (which has been raised) wouldn't it be more "fair" to correct the mistake in a situation where, after the B/R improperly goes to first base, on the next pitch the next batter hits a double scoring the improper runner...as opposed to fixing it merely after two pitches caught by the catcher?

In the former, the offense gets a Double benefit: they not only get a runner, but they got a run as a result of the improper runner. In the latter the offense only got one benefit: a runner who may or may not score. I would think "fairness" would dictate that the umpire correct the mistake where the runner scores than where he is still at first after a couple of pitches because of the double benefit to the offense. (And as I previously said, IMO, "fairness" does not always lead to the correct result.)

In my mind both (a hit on the next pitch, or a next pitch caught by the catcher) are the same thing: subsequent action in the game that ends the period of time during which the "offended" team could protest and/or appeal.

Again, the umpire screwed up and "awarded" first as a result of a balk (either by positively telling him to go to first (which honest-to-God I saw happen in a varsity high school game once [I was not umpiring]!!!) or by simply letting him go to first). The time to protest the umpire's misapplication of the rules expired when the next pitch occured....whether that pitch was drilled for a home-run or simply caught by the catcher.

Just another thought...

Well, gosh, I just didn't read the whole thread.

I don't what happened after B1 went to base illegally. Anything resulting from that - until discovere3d - is void.

I treat it just as if there were not 8 players (plus the catcher) on the field.

Another play: F1 balks, with runners on second and third. The umpire scores R3 and forgets to advance R1. There's a pitch. "Oops!"

Does R2 stay at second?

Now that I understand your base coaching scenario better, I admit it is a good question.

The distinction, however, is a factually based one. The OP involves a "legal player", your situation does not. I use "legal player" to mean one who is legally in the game.

In your scenario, the coach cannot at anytime be in the game legally...there is a violation of the substition rules: namely, he didn't sub for anyone! Your situation absolutely calls for 9.01 (c), if for no other reason than PBUC, MLBUM, J/R have never contemplated this occuring so its not addressed by any rules authority. But most importantly...your situation does not involve a misapplication of the rules by the umpires. There was no call made by the umpires that could have trigged the coaches' conduct.

However, in the OP, while I cannot guarantee it (since I can't read the player's mind), it is likely that the B/R went to first as a result of Balk call...that is, he believed the penalty included him going to first. As I said above, the umpires' actions in letting him go and stay at first constitute a misapplication of the rules by the umpires and demand a protest...IMHO.

We, as umpires, are often called upon to judge players' intent (was it malicious contact? Was he throwing at the batter? etc.). We can only do our best to determine the intent. The OP's batter likely went to first because of the "Balk" call and his belief that he was entitled to first base a result thereof. Your coach likely went to first because he's trying to make Ty Cobb look like a saint...he's a cheating prick. The protest rule was never intended to prevent an umpire from punishing, ejecting and nullifying the actions of a flagrant cheater...it was designed to prevent an umpire (after a period of time) from "punishing" a player, and his team, who benefitted from a misapplication of the rules.

Is that any good? :D

I don't know who is saying that (I'm too lazy to re-read the entire thread), but I'm not.

My job is to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by the rules. Bring him back. If something happened before Rip VanWinkle wakes up, it never happened.

This is a great response. I contend that by not punishing the offensive team, the umpire is certainly setting himself up for a protest. Regardless of the Batters intent, he advanced to first base without being eligible to do so. If B2 completes B1's at bat, there has to (after a proper appeal) be an out called. Otherwise, it's unfair to the defense.



BTW- This is a great thread!

And as I posted earlier, I contend that the umpire bringing R1 back to bat after a pitch, play or attempted play has occurred is setting himself up for a protest...for misapplying the protest rule by basically correcting an error that had to be corrected before the next pitch, play or attempted play.

What's fair to the defense is for the umpire to uphold a properly lodged protest on the field. What's unfair is to deny a proper protest.

lawump, on this, I agree with you. Just having a "do-over" on the two pitches because it was easy to fix is not the right way to do this, because it would obviously not be the right way to do this had something more significant happened.

To me, the ONLY way to fix this is to treat it EXACTLY as if the original BR had simply been erroneously replaced by the next batter, in the middle of his at bat --- the pitches count. If something significant happened, treat as BOO, just as you would had he been erroneously replaced by the next batter. If something significant didn't happen (like the OP - just two pitches, no other effects), then the original correct batter comes back to finish his at bat ... which is just what you'd do if BOO was reported at this point.

I think that it CANNOT be a violation of the substitution rules BECAUSE he didn't sub for anyone.
I agree that that's true, but do NOT agree that in the OP the umpire made any award or even an error. At worst, he failed to preventatively umpire and failed to get the improper player (regardless of whether he was the current batter or a basecoach or someone else on the team) off the base in a timely matter - this portion can be fixed by 9.01c. But the umpire is not responsible for preventing the offense from sending the wrong batter to the plate, even if the offensive mistake happened mid-at-bat.
I agree with this, but the batter's BELIEF is not the umpire's fault.

And I understand that this is your opinion. Mine differs and it happens to agree with Carl's in this instance. Absent a factual ruling, I guess that is where I'll have to leave it.

Considering the age level of both players and umpires, I would go with Carl here: Bring R1 back to the box with his original count and play on.

Why make it hard? The kids are U10 - fix it and play on. Any coach or manager that's goes overboard about this is leaving. The TD get's his tail kicked after the game.

And I think it is a violation for that same reason...but we don't have a definitive answer to settle this.

And as I previously posted, I believe the failure to prevent the batter from taking first as a result of the balk call constitutes an award of first (as posted above). We'll again just have to agree to disagree.

No, but the umpire's misapplication of the rules is (as discussed above by me in this thread).

We agree to disagree!

As an aside: In an NCAA Division 1 baseball game I had the following take place:

(1) 3-1 count to batter. Pitch comes in, I say "Ball four". Batter goes to first.
(2) First pitch to next batter occurs...called "strike".
(3) Defensive manager comes out to argue that it was only "ball three" to the first batter.
(4) I tell him I'm sure it was ball four as I said the count out load several times during the at-bat, without objection from anyone, and that in any event "even if you are right another pitch has occured so it is too late to protest."
(5) He muttered about me being wrong and left.

Was I wrong?

I dunno, run and get Randy Savage and have an old-timers tag team?:confused: