|
Mon May 20, 2002, 07:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
District Semi-Final in Ohio,Batter 1A gets a base hit, a pinch runner is put in for him, Batter 2A gets another hit. Team A has men on first and second, Team B intentionally walks batter 3A to fill the bases. There is 1 out, Team B's Coach calls time to confer with HP Ump and says,"player on third base from Team A who was put in to pinch runner has some sort of gold necklace on". The 2 Umps confer and have a meeting in front of pitcher's mound, eventually tossing Player on Team A who was on third base out of the game. Coach of Team A replaces player with another runner at third. Coach from Team B confers with HP Ump again and this time HP Ump calls runner at third base out also. Now we have runners at 1st & 2nd with 2 outs. Needless to say, batter 4A hits slow grounder to second baseman who retires the side. Was this the correct ruling?
|
|
Mon May 20, 2002, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If this is Fed, the ump is supposed to give a team warning first. After that, a player wearing jewelry is ejected, but if he is a runner, he is not called out. A substitute runner takes his place. If that runner is also wearing jewelry, he too is ejected, but not called out.
Why did the umps call one runner out and not the other? What was the offensive coach doing all this time? (Also, who would intentionally walk somebody with runners on 1B and 2B and one out?!) District Semi-Final? Hard to believe. Maybe Ohio has different rules.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Tue May 21, 2002, 11:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not sure why the player would be out and even tossing him seems too harsh to me. If the coach had said something when he came up to bat, the ump would have just told the player to take the necklace off.
It's not an illegal piece of equipment that was used (i.e. pine tar bat) so I don't see why an ejection or out would be warranted. Think of it the other way around. Let's say the pitcher was wearing a necklace and fans three batters. Then the opposing coach comes out to protest. Would you put those three batters on base? I don't think so. You would just tell the pitcher to take off the necklace. IMHO the umps blew the call based on coaches litigation.
__________________
David A. Brand
|
|
Wed May 22, 2002, 11:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ejection seems harsh to me, too, but that's the Fed rule, after a team warning. Another reason this is my last year of Fed umpiring.
Read the Fed 2002 case book in section 3.3.1 (I think) for some other examples. Ejection for using a "tobacco-like substance," even if it turns out to be licorice or bubble gum. The Fed rules remind me of the mandatory sentencing laws that were introduced after a few airhead judges gave light sentences to vicious criminals. Mandatory sentencing laws don't work, and neither do Fed's rules that don't allow an umpire to use his own judgment about individual situations. Maybe Fed will eventually order ejection for any player who voices a politically incorrect opinion within the confines of the playing field. "Batter, what do you think of Title IX? Wrong! You're gone!"
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Wed May 22, 2002, 12:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If that's the rule, then so be it, but I did not see anything in the thread that a warning was ever given. Surely, if the PU had given a warning, the kids would have just taken the stuff off and that would have been the end of it.
It can't be an out and I still don't see how ejection is warranted here. Personally, I think they blew the call.
__________________
David A. Brand
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
