Interesting Play

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ibgman

If you, as the umpire, have definitive proof that cheating occured, dump everyone invloved otherwise Play Ball! and let the league deal with the aftermath.

-g

Proof such as the runner who scored appearing AFTER the one still on base in the batting order?

This one's not challenging for most umpires, but maybe you'd prefer to let the protest committee figure it out.

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

I guess I am a little perplexed at why the umpire(s) put the ball back in play after the runners switched positions? I can be accused of missing things but that one would seem fairly obvious....

Lawrence

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey

I guess I am a little perplexed at why the umpire(s) put the ball back in play after the runners switched positions? I can be accused of missing things but that one would seem fairly obvious....

Lawrence

You know the # of every runner on base?
Most of the time I don't even know the # of the batter(unless there is some specific reason I want to know, which is very rare) much less know the #s of the baserunners.
It would not be obvious to me because it's not something I would ever pay attention to.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Proof such as the runner who scored appearing AFTER the one still on base in the batting order?

This one's not challenging for most umpires, but maybe you'd prefer to let the protest committee figure it out.

After a time out I only check that I have runners on the correct bases not the correct #s on the correct bases and I doubt any one does.

I also don't keep a book nor do I catalog the #s and faces of those crossing HP. So just because defensive team claims a switch doesn't make it so.

So I definitely would need proof before acting on accusation.

[ibgman]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Proof such as the runner who scored appearing AFTER the one still on base in the batting order?

This one's not challenging for most umpires, but maybe you'd prefer to let the protest committee figure it out.

I am LMMFAO.....are you trying to tell me that you know what INDIVIDUAL PLAYER is occupying what base at any specific time through the whole game?

B.S. <------ and they ain't my initials.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by ibgman

I am LMMFAO.....are you trying to tell me that you know what INDIVIDUAL PLAYER is occupying what base at any specific time through the whole game?

B.S. <------ and they ain't my initials.

Sure I do, he's the one ... STANDING RIGHT THERE.
I certainly know that there were 2 runners on base, one scored, and one is still there. I can certainly go to the scorebook and determine that the fellow who "scored" is after the fellow who is still standing on a base in the BO; from this information I can certainly derive proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a switch has occurred. At which point I'm adopting mbyron's course of action, and I'm ejecting every possible culprit I can find. I'm also cancelling the run, 'tho I'm less sanguine about my rule support for this one; but that's OK - I DARE the cheating ba$tards to protest.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

I can certainly go to the scorebook and determine that the fellow who "scored" is after the fellow who is still standing on a base in the BO; from this information I can certainly derive proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a switch has occurred.

All true, but conceivably the switch was an actual batting out of order, undetected at the time, and therefore not necessarily cheating. Not a very high likelihood of this happening, though.


And probably, once the music begins to play, somebody on the offensive team will give it away.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

Sure I do, he's the one ... STANDING RIGHT THERE.
I certainly know that there were 2 runners on base, one scored, and one is still there. I can certainly go to the scorebook and determine that the fellow who "scored" is after the fellow who is still standing on a base in the BO; from this information I can certainly derive proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a switch has occurred. At which point I'm adopting mbyron's course of action, and I'm ejecting every possible culprit I can find. I'm also cancelling the run, 'tho I'm less sanguine about my rule support for this one; but that's OK - I DARE the cheating ba$tards to protest.

Thank you. In fact, I watch for this kind of thing when multiple runners are on. But if, as in the OP, I had missed it, I could easily look it up in the book. Maybe some people don't know that umpires are allowed to do this.

Dave's right that BOO would cause the same symptoms, and he's also right that these things unravel fast under scrutiny. Moreover, although I don't keep the lineup in my head, I do notice whether the little guy batted before or after the big guy.

We can't use the rule against passing another runner, which applies only during live ball and is a baserunning mistake, not an act of cheating.

As for allowing the run, I just can't see it. I don't accept the analogy of an illegal bat or glove: those are specific rule violations with specific penalties attached. This blatant act of cheating must be corrected, or there would be too much cheese for future rats.

And, as Carter so neatly points out: I'd love to attend the protest hearing over my canceling the run.

[bob jenkins]

FED had this play (except the discovery was timely, and not a few pitches after one of the runners had scored) in one of their interps a few years ago. IIRC, the ruling was "R1 is out for passing a runner. R2 is out for running the bases in reverse order. The coach is ejected for unsporting conduct."

[mbyron]

I can see FED ruling that way - if you eject both runners, too often the game would be over (when teams field only 9).

The FED ruling probably had R1 and R2 reversed from what you describe (R1 initially on 3B, now 2B, ran the bases in reverse).