Interesting Play

[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

[C'monBlue]

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.

[SAump]

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.

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[ibgman]

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

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

[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.