What was this umpire thinking?

[TwoBits]

I remember the play that Rich mentioned, but I couldn't remember who had actually did it.

Anyway, there's more to the story. I come off my field to find the tournament director's nose in a rule book. He gives me the scenario, to which I replied that he's not going to find anything in the rule book to describe the situation, to which he agrees. The umpire who made the call used 9.01c to justify why he ruled the way he did.

The tournament director told me that, had the defensive coach protested, and with the umpire invoking 9.01c, he would have to deny the protest.

[blueump]

The umpire doesn't have a leg to stand on and the tournament director maybe better to go fishing on a weekend instead of directing baseball!

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

... The umpire who made the call used 9.01c to justify why he ruled the way he did.

The tournament director told me that, had the defensive coach protested, and with the umpire invoking 9.01c, he would have to deny the protest.

TwoBits,

Neither the umpire nor the Tournament Director has the slightest idea regarding the proper application of 9.01(c).

JM

[johnnyg08]

I don't think 9.01(c) means that the ump gets to change the rules

[TussAgee11]

Is it just me or is the quality of posts these days going down.

You can't just claim 9.01c to make up rules!

And I'm sure there is a casebook on this play somewhere, there just has to be.

9.01c should only be used when something so strange happens that the rules couldn't even come close to. Like a coach standing in LBT! Its a rule that is a catch-all for all the wierd things that can happen in a baseball game, that the umpire should use fairness and good judgement when something happens that isn't specificallyl covered in the rules.

I hate it when umpires use 9.01c as a copout for their botched call.

[BretMan]

The umpire and the TD are nuts!

Next thing you know, umpires will be invoking 9.01c to retroactively go back and change the results of a timing play from three innings earlier.

The Paul O'Neill play immediately came to mind for me, too. O'Neill is a Columbus boy, and we went to the same high school. He graduated a couple of years after I did.

One point where my memory was fuzzy was I thought that this happened while he was with the Yankees, but wasn't sure on that point.

The circumstances around the play were odd. It was the final inning and the batter dropped a liner in front of O'Neill in shallow right. The charging O'Neill, thinking that the winning run would score on this apparent hit, angrily kicked at the ball assuming that the game had been lost.

By sheer luck, the kick sent the ball directly to the first baseman who fielded it to retire the batter-runner (GOOOOAALLLL!). Since there were two outs, no run scored and the game continued.

At least that's how my aging brain remembers the play from perhaps fifteen years ago.

As to the question of what the umpire from the original post was thinking:

That he was officiating a football or basketball game?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Next thing you know, umpires will be invoking 9.01c to retroactively go back and change the results of a timing play from three innings earlier.

Now that, folks, is funny!

[LMan]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Is it just me or is the quality of posts these days going down.

You can't just claim 9.01c to make up rules!

What does 9.01(c) have to do with post quality?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by LMan

What does 9.01(c) have to do with post quality?

I think that he meant that inexperienced umpires claim every invented call they make to be covered by OBR 9.01(c). We experienced umpires rarely (if ever) use that all encompassing rule. We officiate by the rules and don't "invent" any.

Enjoy