Correctable Error?

[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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Tell that Umpire to stay home next game 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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

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.

Oh Lordy, this is the big one....Elizabeth, I'm comin' to join ya honey!

[Huskerblue]

Ya Big Dummy!!!

[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,

[C'monBlue]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by C'monBlue

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.

[mcrowder]

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).

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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.

[nickrego]

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.

[ctblu40]

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.

[UmpJM]

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

[lawump]

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.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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.

JM

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.)