Umpire Obstruction?

[hyboxer]

Here is what happened at a 16 and under AAU tournament (HS rules): One out with runner on 3rd. Batter strikes out. Runner is advancing to home. Catcher gives the ball to plate ump, and the ump places ball in his bag. Umpire then removes ball and gives it back to catcher, pauses then calls "dead ball." Sends runner back to 3rd with two outs.
Did he get it right?

[Umpire_Jeremy]

wow... embarassing.

The umpire by accepting the ball from the catcher put the runner in jeopardy by his actions so I believe that the right call was made.

I really have no rules to back this up (are there any?? besides 9.01c)

Sorry Rog, I couldn't find this in any of the books that I have.

[Rog]

re: "Here is what happened at a 16 and under AAU tournament (HS rules)"
Under NFHS rules, it was in deed a dead ball when that live ball was handled by the umpire!

re: "Sorry Rog, I couldn't find this in any of the books that I have"
Well, just what books do you have? Then we can put you on the right track of which ones to get!
But, I suspect you are holding out on me.....

[brandda]

I saw something similar here where an umpire turned around to sweep the plate without calling time and a man from third tried to score. The way I understand it, once the umpire stops play, whether he explicitly calls time or not (and both of these situations would qualify) then the ball is dead.

[Umpire_Jeremy]

That one I would not agree with.

The reason it was a dead ball before is because the umpire touched the live ball.

In your situation, he didn't touch the ball.

Should the umpire have called time to clean the plate? Yes.

Rog can probably help me out here?

[Rog]

re: "Rog can probably help me out here?"
No can do, until you answer the first question -
"Well, just what books do you have?"

*Wu Tzu: "The RIght Way".....

[brandda]

I agree that the umpire should have called time, but he didn't. The way it was explained to me is that if the run was allowed it gives an advantage to the offense because the defense had stopped when the ump turned around.

I struggled with the concept of an "implied" time out as well but that was the consensus. If someone has a different interpretation, I am happy to hear it.

[Umpire_Jeremy]

brandda,

I think we could both agree that the umpire probably made a mistake and probably will never do it again if there was a heated discussion that followed.

I also think that we can both agree that there is no such thing as "implied time out".

However, I would like you to point me to the interpretation that you have or whomever told you gave you.

My feeling is that since no time was called the runner may advance on his own.

An interesting topic and I could possibly be persuaded to change my mind because I've never had to deal with such a situation.

[Umpire_Jeremy]

Rog,

My current library of books is as follows:

(1) PBUC Umpire Manual
(2) Make the Right Call
(3) Two man umpire system manual
(4) MLB 2002 Rule Book


As you can see, my library is not very extensive although I really enjoy READING the first two on my list. Great Books.

I am definately open to any recommendations you may have?

[ozzy6900]

Under FED 5-1-1h, The ball is immediatly dead if the umpire handles a live ball or calls "Time" for inspecting the ball .....

In OBR, I would go with 5.10 (e) The ball is deadWhen the umpire wishes to examine the ball, to consult with a manager, or any similar cause.

The umpire made the right call. The ball was dead the moment he handled the "live ball" (whether he called "time" or not). And I agree that it must be very embarassing to do this.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Jul 2nd, 2002 at 12:30 PM]

[Rog]

JEA:
5.10(e)
5.10 The ball becomes dead when an umpire calls “Time.”
The umpire-in-chief shall call “Time”-
(e)When the umpire wishes to examine the ball, to consult with either manager, or for any similar cause.
Cross References: 3.03, 3.12, 5.02, 8.06

J/R:
(13) any need for time according to the Discretion of
5.10e
an umpire, such as to examine the baseball.

It would almost appear that 9.01(c) could come into action on this issue!
Umpire turns back to playing field to dust off the plate; and, inadvertently hinders a play coming at the plate.

Not terribly difficult to yell out "Time"; but, we all have our moments when the mind goes blank.....

A couple of really good books to get:

"The 2002 B.R.D." by a kid : - ) named - Carl Childress
[email protected]

and,

"The Professional Rules of Baseball" -aka- J/R
[email protected]

[Umpire_Jeremy]

Rog,

I assume that you are a fan of Carl's work.

have you read the "working the plate/bases" books yet? I just ordered them from Gerry Davis yesterday and will look into your other recommendations.

Thanks again.

[Rog]

About the B. R. D. -

As taken from a previous bit:
BRD is a book of rules compilations titled "Baseball Rule Differences" by Carl Childress, now in its 19th edition. This book organizes rules from the National Federation of High School Associations (NFHS), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the Official Baseball Rules (used in professional games and most youth leagues). “The BRD organizes and lists the differences, examines the diverging philosophies behind them, explains and illustrates them, and advises you how best to cope with them when they arise in your games,” (Childress 3)


http://www.rightsports.com/products.php

or in their words - - -

The 2002 B.R.D.
(Baseball Rules Differences)

The 21st edition of Carl Childress' Baseball Rules Differences (The 2002 B.R.D.) is the same, convenient size as last year's (5.5" x 8.5"), but with a great new spiral binding! Inside, you'll find 300 pages full of information about National Federation, NCAA, and Official Baseball Rules that you can't get anywhere else.

RightSports is pleased to be the official distributor for the 2001 B.R.D. This brand new edition is currently shipping.

Only $18.95!

I have not read the latest items by Papa C (yet).

re: "I assume that you are a fan of Carl's work."
Well, I don't know if I could go that far - after all, he is a rebel; and, I'm a yankee..... ; - )

[Bfair]

Originally posted by hyboxer
Here is what happened at a 16 and under AAU tournament (HS rules): One out with runner on 3rd. Batter strikes out. Runner is advancing to home. Catcher gives the ball to plate ump, and the ump places ball in his bag. Umpire then removes ball and gives it back to catcher, pauses then calls "dead ball." Sends runner back to 3rd with two outs.
Did he get it right?

While I've seen answers potential to OBR, the game was played per Fed rule.
All of us know the umpire should not have accepted the live ball from the catcher. However, it occurred, so at this point I would have to apply judgment regarding the advance of R3.

IMO, the accepting of the ball is a decision by the umpire which causes the ball to become dead (per Fed rule). This decision may have put either the offense or the defense at a disadvantage. Fed rule 10-2-3L also allows PU to rectify any situation where on official's reversed decision puts a team at a disadvantage.

If R3, in the judgment of the umpires, would have scored safely despite the umpire accepting the live ball, then score the run. The catcher should have also known there were only 2 outs, and should have been making the play on R3.

If, in the judgment of the umpires, the runner would not have made it safely to score, then the officials should declare him out. This would be the least likely outcome of this play as the defense will receive little benefit of doubt regarding the action. I would only rule this if I were certain R3 was toast at the plate. F2 should have played on the advancing R3 rather than take action to allow the ball to become dead. If he felt the 3rd out had occurred, he may have just as likely rolled the ball toward the rubber after the strikeout.

If, in the judgment of the umpires, the runner broke to score only after the umpire accepted the ball, then the play is nullified by sending R3 back to 3B.

That is how I would rule per Fed rule.
The umpire put himself in this predicament by accepting the live ball, and it’s his job to make the ruling. In making the ruling here, it’s best to make the ruling as you can best support it by Fed rule. There is going to be a disgruntled team after the ruling of this play no matter what he rules, so he might as well get it right and take his lumps for his brain fart.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[jicecone]

True Story.

Doing a 13yr old pony game on a hot hot day in Long Island.
Second game of a long double header. Third game of the day for me. Score, 3 Zillion to 6. One out, runner on third, sqibbler hit to pitcher. Pitcher throws home to tag runner coming home. After tagging the runner, the catcher flips the ball to me, I flip the ball back to the catcher, he reacts and catches it. Then throws out batter runner advancing to second. Nobody saw it and on that day and that time it was the correct call. I would never do it again but on that day it happened.