What would you do?

[PeteBooth]

Pete:

I think your interpretation is a little out there. I'm curious under what conditions a precedent was set in OBR to set aside the call of "time." I know there's been a precedent set to reverse the call of "foul."

I think it would make matters worse if we tried to BS our way through it by claiming how the ball was thrown to the plate and how the teams reacted to the call makes a difference.

Tim.

OBR 5.09
The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when --

(e) A foul ball is not caught; runners return.


Tim, we are talking semantics here. When an umpire calls FOUL for all practical purposes (other than a Fly ball that is FOUL), the ball is Immediately dead as when TIME is called.

This past year the Major League Umpires changed a FOUL call to FAIR (can't remember the game but I remember seeing the highlights on ESPN). Andy Konyar changed a FOUL call to FAIR in the LLWS.

Therefore, while the FOUL call was not preceded by the call of TIME , in the aforementioned instances the ball was immediately dead as if TIME had been called. The call was changed on the theory that the players did not react to the call of FOUL.

In your example, either way the Umpire is going to hear it. He/she BY RULE and PRECEDENT as in the aforementioned examples can award the game ending HR to the batter.

In a nutshell it's a grey situation as the Umpire can say that TIME was called hence No HR allowed an enforce the balk or he/she could rule that even though TIME was called, the players reacted as if NO Time had been called and allow the play to stand.

As mentioned the umpire is going to take heat either way EXCEPT in a FED game in which case the ball became immediately dead as soon as F1 committed the balk.

Pete Booth