Interesting Play

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ibgman

It seems to me that they lost the right to appeal after a pitch was thrown.

To quote an old time poster: "Citation, please."

[DG]

Originally Posted by David B

Got a call today from another umpire with the following situation:

R2 (fast) and R3 (slow) with 2 outs. Defensive team has a time out for conference and the two runners switch.

There is a passed ball and R3 (now the fast runner) scores. The game continues for a few pitches when the defensive team realizes what has happened and protests.

What's the call?

Thought I'd post this just to get some feedback and to see which rules are suggested. I will post later what the umpires actually did right or wrong.

Thanks
David

I don't think there is a rule or interpretation to cover this. So I would allow the run, because defense had an opportunity to complain even before the first pitch after the switch, and did not. I would then eject the offensive manager for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[charliej47]

I think you have stated the passed runner rule and I would use it.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by charliej47

I think you have stated the passed runner rule and I would use it.

The problem with this is that it has to be called when it happens. To retroactively use this rule, would amount to changing ball to a called strike about 2-3 pitches after the runner has taken first base on a walk. Granted the switching of runners on base is an act of cheating by the offense, it is still our place to catch this when it happens just as we would be expected to make a ball/strike call when it happens. I know there is the issue of the run being added 3 innings after the fact in the Baltimore game about a month ago, but this is a situation where the umps didn't misapply the rules (which is what they ruled they did in the Baltimore game), but rather a missed call.

Nevertheless, the actions of the manager are clearly unsportsmanlike and require an ejection. Depending on age level and ruleset, I'm ejecting/restricting both runners as well assuming they were of a sufficient age to understand what they were doing.

As far as the issue of cheating allowing us to fix the issue however we see fit based on 9.01(c), I think the history of cheating suggests otherwise. If a player is found with a corked bat in his 3 AB of a game and hit HR's in the first two, we don't just erase the previous AB's. We can call him out for and nullify action during the 3rd AB if it is discovered at the proper time, but not two to three pitches later. If the first baseman is involved in all 3 outs of the first inning, and his illegal glove is discovered on the 3rd out of the inning, we don't go back and start the game over again. Sometimes stuff happens that cannot be corrected to erase the cheating and thats the unfortunate thing about cheating.