What was this umpire thinking?

[TwoBits]

Heard this happen on a field at a tournament I was working:

R2, outs not important. Batter hits one to the right of F6. F6 deliberately kicked the ball to F5, who fields the ball behind third base. R2 rounds third and is thrown out at home. Umpire rules that F6 "committed an illegal act" and awards R2 home.

Defensive coach wasn't happy and thought about protesting, but he didn't.

Comments?

[David B]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

Heard this happen on a field at a tournament I was working:

R2, outs not important. Batter hits one to the right of F6. F6 deliberately kicked the ball to F5, who fields the ball behind third base. R2 rounds third and is thrown out at home. Umpire rules that F6 "committed an illegal act" and awards R2 home.

Defensive coach wasn't happy and thought about protesting, but he didn't.

Comments?

TWP to be sure, hard to see how he could intentionally kick a ground ball unless its a very very slow roller.

But, don't know what the umpire was thinking. I can't remember finding a rule about kicking the ball unless its kicked out of play deliberately.

But maybe I missed something.

Thanks
David

[blueump]

I saw this play by the Detroit Tigers about 3 years ago. BR heading to first after a ground ball the the pitcher. The pitcher could never get a good handle on the ball and kept bobbling it between his hand and his glove as he headed toward first. Eventually the ball fell from his hand toward the ground. The pitcher then simply kicked at the ball, it hit his foot perfectly, and went directly into the first baseman's outstretched glove for an out.

I don't care how it gets there. It's an out.

[Rich Ives]

When Paul O'Neill played for Cincy, he once fumbled a ball in the outfield and kicked it back tot the infield.

Legal.

[UmpJM]

TwoBits,

Were this a football game, it could draw an "illegal kicking" flag.

In baseball, (as long as it's a defensive player) this is perfectly legal. Umpire was making stuff up, and Coach should have protested.

JM

[johnnyg08]

another myth that we'll all have to sort out at some point. thanks blue, for making up yet another rule.

[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?

[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

[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!