Game "ending" cluster boink

[BJ Moose]

Tie score, bottom of the 9th, no out, R2, R3. Fly ball to left field that is
caught. Runners tag up and advance with the apparent winning run scoring.
Players gather around plate area to congratulate player who scored the apparent winning run.
The defense properly appeals that R3 left early. R3 is called out for leaving early.
Meanwhile, R2 who has properly tagged up and advanced to and rounded third thinking the winning run had scored is just hanging out between third and home. After seeing that the that R3 was called out on apppeal, he advances to
home and now HE is the apparent winning run.
BUT WAIT......the defense now
claims that with so many players from the offensive team around the plate area, they were deprived of the opportunity of making a play on R2 who had
advanced home with the apparent winning run.

A ruling?

[Umpire_Jeremy]

hmm...intersting. Sounds like an act of desperation to me, however..... in your judgement could they have made a play on the runner? Do you feel the players around home plate interfered with the defense to make a play?

[Whowefoolin]

First, usually an appeal happens after everything has settle down. So when was the appeal made at 3rd? Where was R2 at that time? Sound kind of fishy.

I don't understand how R2 can be rounding third and everyone jumpy and happy...and an appeal within all that.

[mick]

Originally posted by Whowefoolin
First, usually an appeal happens after everything has settle down. So when was the appeal made at 3rd? Where was R2 at that time? Sound kind of fishy.

I don't understand how R2 can be rounding third and everyone jumpy and happy...and an appeal within all that.

Whowe,
I thought this was just a "case sitch" when the post said, "bottom of the ninth".
mick

[brandda]

Why was R3 out? If he left early, he should have just been sent back to 3rd and R2 goes back to second. Batter up.

Putting that aside, and assuming that the play went forward anyway, the defense has a valid point on R2. If bench players came on the field and legitimately interfered with the defense's ability to get an out (umpire judgement call) then you have interference and R2 would be out.

[mick]

Originally posted by brandda
Why was R3 out? If he left early, he should have just been sent back to 3rd and R2 goes back to second. Batter up.

brandda,
Under which rules do we merely say, "Go back to 3rd", on a caught fly ball?
mick

[brandda]

Oops. Misread the post. Did not realize that the leaving early was a byproduct of a tag up. In LL, runners cannot leave the base until the ball crosses the plate and if they do, they are sent back to their original base. Completely different play. My bad.

[Bfair]

An infraction of 7.09(e) (congregating at a base to confuse or hinder the defense) is not an "appealable" base running infraction. It's one that should have been called by the official if it occurred. So, the defense didn't "appeal" it, they complained about it. It's umpire judgment and decision as to what he will do regarding 7.09(e).

So, Moose, tell us more about the appeal. What did you see?

Did the defense attempt to play on R2 after gaining the out on R2?
Did they even remember R2 when considering the appeal at 3rd?
How far was R2 from the dish when the appeal was made?
Could the defense have retired R2 after the appeal if they attempted to do so, or was he too close to home plate?

While you indicate the teammmates came out to the dish to congratulate R3, that doesn't mean they are up the line congratulating R2 (and you certainly didn't state that they were). So, has their presence hidden the existence of R2? It seems to me the defense needs to be aware that R2 still existed, and should know his location and actions. In fact, considerations about R2 should have been there before the appeal of R3. IOW, the defense should have been aware he rounded 3B toward home plate and could score during the appeal of R3.

There are too many other factors to consider that you've not provided. IMO, the possibility of a ruling exists under 7.09(e) or 3.15---both being umpire judgment based on all factors of the incident. The defense's complaint about the other players will not be a scapegoat for their own lack of awareness regarding R2, and their needing to be aware that R2 existed and could score---something that appears to be lacking in this situation.

I think more details as to what actally occurred are needed to make a ruling. Still, it brings up the question as to what should an official do if R3 has left early on a game winner. Wouldn't keeping the other teammates away be an indicator as to the umpire's judgment of R3 possibly leaving early? I'd tend to think so. How does an umpire prevent such an incident from occurring without showing his hand before the cards are played?


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

A ruling?

9 innings? Likely some form of "adult" league?

"Run counts...that's game....good bye."

Exit at gate on winners' side.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Bfair
...Still, it brings up the question as to what should an official do if R3 has left early on a game winner. Wouldn't keeping the other teammates away be an indicator as to the umpire's judgment of R3 possibly leaving early? I'd tend to think so. How does an umpire prevent such an incident from occurring without showing his hand before the cards are played?


Just my opinion,

Freix

Steve;

This is not a recommendation, just an observation of big dogs.

The way that a big dog would prevent this "cluster boink" and all of its following bad or difficult decisions is:

Big dogs often make judgement calls based on which will cause them the least amount of manure, not what by what actually happened. Therefore, the big dog would assess that calling R3 out would create too many problems and instead call him safe. That leads to much fewer problems, (just one mad team), hence we don't have any of these other decisions to make! :o)

Peter

[GarthB]

Therefore, the big dog would assess that calling R3 out would create too many problems and instead call him safe. That leads to much fewer problems, (just one mad team), hence we don't have any of these other decisions to make! )

Good Call.....meet you at the gate.

[BJ Moose]

OH no you don't, HOLY Dude!

This actually happened, Semipro game. Many miles from me...

But, allow that R3 really REALLY left early, and no dog no matter HOW BIG could have not ruled properly (OUT!) on that appeal.

So, continue with the boinking.......

Originally posted by His High Holiness

The way that a big dog would prevent this "cluster boink" and all of its following bad or difficult decisions is:

Big dogs often make judgement calls based on which will cause them the least amount of manure, not what by what actually happened. Therefore, the big dog would assess that calling R3 out would create too many problems and instead call him safe.
Peter [/B]

[insatty]

One fact I would like to know is whether, after R3 leaves early, there was an throw to the plate to retire R3, and if so was the play a whacker. Assuming no throw to or no close play at the plate, I agree with Garth and Peter. R3 gained no advantage, so why turn a celebration of a great game into a major-league s@#thouse?

I know that the purists will fry me, but as one very experienced umpire once told me, "Officiate only when you have to!"

[Boone]

although i too wasn't at the park at the time of the boik, I was standing next to the guy taking the cell phone call from the defensive coach from the dugout as this chithouse was in progress.

the coach originally argued that "how can the guy from second score when the guy from third is put out of appeal?" Once the three umpires listening to this over the cell phone (and about to enter the Pyramid Brewery across from Safeco Field) pretty much agreed that R2 could score, he switched to arguing that because of the home team on the field, they were unable to make a play.

My personal opinion is that this coach is creating this "situation" once his first original complaint was denied. coach's hindsight I like to call it as they begin to rewrite history.

I score R2 unless I'm 100 percent confident that a play was being made on him. A smart catcher (if it was he who threw the ball to third on the appeal), since he knew he was about to retire R3 on appeal, would lay a tag on R2 first as he was just standing there and then make the appeal. Then we have a tidy triple play.

Bullwinkle originally wanted to get someone out for passing a runner! HUH???

[Bfair]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Steve;

This is not a recommendation, just an observation of big dogs.

The way that a big dog would prevent this "cluster boink" and all of its following bad or difficult decisions is:

Big dogs often make judgement calls based on which will cause them the least amount of manure, not what by what actually happened. Therefore, the big dog would assess that calling R3 out would create too many problems and instead call him safe. That leads to much fewer problems, (just one mad team), hence we don't have any of these other decisions to make! )

Peter

While you may not believe this, Peter, I knew exactly what your response was going to be. It's not necessarily the big dog thing to do........many would do it.
It's the smart thing to do---although not too fair to the defense.


Freix