Help me with this situation!

[umpjong]

Hate to disagree, but a rule misapplication must be corrected prior to the next pitch.

Rule 4.19 Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or attempted play

This is clearly a rules misapplication. (brain fart maybe, but clearly a rules misapplication)

Note 1-2-3 i 1 for NFHS

[Durham]

Use common sense and fair play. Call the kid out and fix it. This isn't an appeal, and I know what the rule says.

[johnnyg08]

Can all FED games be protested? Or are there state jurisdiction rules around that? I can't remember ever hearing/reading about any protests here in MN

[UmpJM]

johnny,

Under FED, protests are a "...by state adoption..." provision in the rules. See 4-5.

In Illinois, the IHSA has chosen not to entertain protests.

JM

[johnnyg08]

that would explain it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Hate to disagree, but a rule misapplication must be corrected prior to the next pitch.

Rule 4.19 Comment: Whenever a manager protests a game because of alleged misapplication of the rules the protest will not be recognized unless the umpires are notified at the time the play under protest occurs and before the next pitch, play or attempted play

This is clearly a rules misapplication. (brain fart maybe, but clearly a rules misapplication)

Note 1-2-3 i 1 for NFHS

I'm not sure what FED rule you meant to cite, but 1-2-3 concerns the location and size of the on-deck circle. There is no case 1.2.3 (i) or any other case 1.2.3 in the 2009 book.

FED leaves more leeway than OBR for umpires to correct their own errors, especially when it puts one team at a disadvantage not intended by the rules. See, for example, the cases concerning a check swing where the BU overrules and his doing so puts the BR or R1 at a disadvantage.

Still, the "till the next pitch" provision is included so that we don't have to go back and replay innings when the screwup is discovered much later. We need that provision, arbitrary as it might be.

Interesting case: I believe that strictly speaking we have till the next pitch to fix an error, and in the OP that pitch has passed. OTOH, it was just 1 pitch, and it seems unfair to the defense to skip the out.

I guess I'd be interested to hear more responses, especially those with rules or cases behind them (not just: "hey, that doesn't seem fair to me!").

[GA Umpire]

My only question is this.

If you are going to correct it after a pitch, how far will you go before you decide it is no longer correctable? 2 pitches, 3, 4, next batter takes 2 pitches,.... How many before you hit a cut off point?

Tough thing to do since there are no rules to cover correcting something. I find this difficult for 1 reason. This is not protestable until 1 pitch has been thrown. But, no protest is supposed to be done if 1 pitch has been thrown. I would side with correcting it and call the batter out. If it is protested(either correcting it or not), it is a 50/50 chance to be upheld.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

This is not protestable until 1 pitch has been thrown.

Not sure why you'd say that. In Ohio it's not "protestable" at all. But this isn't BOO.

The D coach should have requested time immediately and asked why the batter was not out for bunting foul with 2 strikes. There's no limit on when the coach can discuss the issue, just on when the umpire can fix it.

[FATUMP]

There's no limit on when the coach can discuss the issue, just on when the umpire can fix it.

this brings me back to my original question. what is the rule support on when the umpire can fix it?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by FATUMP

There's no limit on when the coach can discuss the issue, just on when the umpire can fix it.

this brings me back to my original question. what is the rule support on when the umpire can fix it?

There is no rule to support it either way. except 9.01 (c)

[PeteBooth]

You do not need rule support. Remember the Indians / O's game a few years back?

A run was put back on the board some 3 innings later.

In the OP you fix the problem. Everything that happened after B1 bunted a ball foul with 2 strikes and 2 outs is null and void NO MATTER when discovered as EVIDENCED by MLB ruling concerning the Inidans / O's game. The link is posted below in case you are interested

MLB denies protest by Indians - MLB - ESPN

Pete Booth

[johnnyg08]

only if it would've been the third out though right?

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You do not need rule support. Remember the Indians / O's game a few years back?

A run was put back on the board some 3 innings later.

In the OP you fix the problem. Everything that happened after B1 bunted a ball foul with 2 strikes and 2 outs is null and void NO MATTER when discovered as EVIDENCED by MLB ruling concerning the Inidans / O's game. The link is posted below in case you are interested

MLB denies protest by Indians - MLB - ESPN

Pete Booth

Pete,

I would argue that these are the same. A scoring error may be fixed at any time, even post-game in certain cases. Scoring errors typically do not directly impact the immediate action on the field but rather add/remove runs.

This is a playing rule mistake where there is a specific time limit set for protest / fix. In this case the manager had his chance & missed it - let a pitch go by.

In OBR we have to eat this and play on on. If a protest is filed so be it, let the league decide. In FED we CAN fix this due to the wider latitude given umpires for this sort of situation.

[SAump]

When an umpire errs, both teams are required to know the situation.
Here a bunt foul for strike three results in an out. Three outs end an innning.
Defense should recognize the third out and clear the field. No.
Defense provides the same batter with a do-over pitch.
Batter singles and a run is scored.
Coach then decides to investigate the matter.
If we overlook the bunt foul, clearly we play on and the run counts.
But if we recognize the third out and clear the field, does the run still count?

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what FED rule you meant to cite, but 1-2-3 concerns the location and size of the on-deck circle. There is no case 1.2.3 (i) or any other case 1.2.3 in the 2009 book.

My boo boo should be 10-2-3 i 1 pg 65