Help me with this situation!

[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?

[PeteBooth]

That is correct EXCEPT if the player who should have been out scored and anything that scored after out number 2.

Example:

leadoff batter: Bunts the ball Foul with 2 strikes - Nothing happens and then B1 singles.

He comes around later to score. His run WOULD NOT COUNT because by RULE he should have been out.

Any runs that score after him ok.

Now batter number 6 is up and grounds out for what should have been out number 2 but is registered as out number 1. Any runs scored after him OK

Now the team bats around and the lead-off hitter comes up again and grounds out for what should have been the end of the inning, however, out number 2 is only registered.

Now any run scored after that is NULL and VOID.

I realize we could also have base running infractions and I will not even venture into that area.

Yes it would be combersome but according to what happened in the Indians / O's game IMO MLB opened up the floodgates to these types of situations.

FWIW these types of things should be treated as appeals meaning if the opposing coach did not notice it as with a base-running mistake, they have until the next pitch, IBB or play to make it KNOWN. After that - TOO BAD, however, that's not what MLB decided.

The Indians lodged a protest and lost.

Pete Booth

[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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

Pete,

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.

Please read the article

The run, which scored on a sacrifice fly in the third inning before the Indians could turn a double play, was later added in the sixth inning -- a ruling that left players, coaches, managers and everyone at Jacobs Field scratching their heads.

MLB chief operating officer Bob DuPuy decided Wednesday that because the umpires' mistake did not involve a judgment call, and because there is nothing in the Official Baseball Rules to address when umpires can make a correction, the umps can act at their own discretion.

The run was later added because a RULE was misappled. In fact if memory serves the PU went into the umpire dressing room to LOOK UP the rule. This involved a timing play where R3 scored BEFORE the completion of the double play.

We are not talking about your run of the mill SCOREKEEPING error here.

Your statement This is a playing rule mistake where there is a specific time limit set for protest / fix. is incorrect and is the REASON the Indians protested. They LOST the Protest.

According to MLB the umps can act at their own discretion concerning RULE discrepancies.

There are SCOREKEEPING ERRORS and then there are Scoring ERRORS because of an umpire's mistake which we are talking about in this OP.

Pete Booth

[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