Interesting Play
 

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

Since this is such a flagrant and egregious act of cheating, I would assume a very liberal interpretation of the "passing an unobstructed previous runner before such runner is out" rule (FED 8-4-2m). Since it allows for a passing runner to be called out during a dead-ball situation, i.e. during the awarding of bases, I would apply the same dead-ball principle to the scoring runner. Thus, the fast runner would be the third out. Restrict both runners to the dugout for the rest of the game and put the head coach in the parking lot. Even if this isn't the exact rule reference, King Rat would have a hard time justifying his actions.

I would announce that the game is being played under protest after the removal of the two baserunners and the 3B coach. I would allow the run and a substitute for the player remaining on 3B. I would enter the info in the official scorebook in case the game must be replayed due to the protest being upheld. I would write up an ejection report on the details which transpired and resume the game under protest. I would report it to the league officials immediately afterward. Let them handle it.

I don't know that a protest is the way to go. I've always been under the imporession that protests are used to correct misapplications of rules. I don't think this would be considered a misapplication of rules. So in my book a protest is out.

I also think it is too late to correct the situation by cancelling scores or moving runners around/putting them back on base. The issue with that would be how much can we cancel out. What if a following batter had been retired, and the coach brings the situation after this? Do you cancel the run based on a following runner advacing past a previous runner? If so do we start the next inning with the batter that was just retired. What do you do if batter that was batting when the passed ball occured hits a HR? At this point you could rule that the runners switching place wouldn't have mattered regarding the score as they would have all scored because of the HR (I'm not saying this makes what the offense did ok, but just throwing out questions).

I think the only justified response is to eject offensive manager as well as the restricting the runners in question and continuing on. Maybe not the best, but I don't think this is a situation covered in the rules.

After calling time, I would:
1. eject the manager;
2. cancel the score and eject the runner who scored;
3. eject R2, but allow the offense to replace the runner there (they did after all earn a runner there).

I'm assuming this is OBR. I can't see allowing a run to score here, which would reward this egregious act of cheating and clearly confer an advantage unintended by the rules. And I don't care whose idea it was, everyone involved goes.

Read the part above in red.

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

Run Scores

The only option at this point is to protest. O.K. Follow your league rules for filing a protest. 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

When I heard the original story this was I told them I would have done. The problem I have today is that I can't find it in any of my books.

So if anyone can come up with a rule to back it up I would appreciate it so I can let the umpires know if there is a solution.

In the original situation the umpires ejected the coach and the players, but allowed the run to score.

Thanks
David

Looks good as is
 

I would have trouble removing the run when the appeal is not made in a timely manner, i.e. before the next pitch. Even upon proper appeal, the run may be justified under the current rules of the game:

Reference: Page 330 of BRD 2006, Appendix A, Official Interp 324, Section 471 OBR The only penalty for illegal re-entry is removal of the offender from the game: All action in which the illegal substitute took part is legal.

Tough nuggies, but that's baseball. Of course the run could not factor in the results after completing the game under protest. If TD or LP is nearby, there is MLB front office support for removing the run 3 innings later. Though I would be cautious about making up rules under OBR 9.01c in this situation because I do not expect this to be in the list of rule changes for 2008. :eek:

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.

2006 Brd
 

In 2006 BRD 471, page 285, Carl writes, "Note 422: Illegal substitutions is one of nine major rule situations where each level treats the play differently."
It is much easier to read page 287, "BRD 476 Substitutes: Pinch Runner: Illegal" to more easily understand those differences.
In summary, upon proper appeal: FED: run nullified. NCAA: Out and run nullified. OBR: Not out and run scores.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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).