|
Sat Aug 26, 2000, 01:17am
|
|||
|
|||
POTEOD #2
Bootnose Hofmann is catching and there's a play at the plate. The runner slides around Hoffman's tag, but also misses the plate. Hoffman doesn't notice the runner missed home. When the runner reaches the dugout, the first baseman yells to Hofmann that the runner missed home. Hofmann runs into the dugout and begins tagging everybody in sight, but the runner sneaks out of the end of the dugout before he is tagged and bolts back toward home plate. Hofmann throws the ball to pitcher Coonskin Davis, who is now covering and the runner beats the throw. Is the runner safe and do you score the run, or is he out when the team on the field begins the appeal process while he has already retired to the dugout? It's your call." Answer: What I confess here is one of my most embarrassing moments as a rules expert. The play above appeared in Its Your Call, written by the editorial staff of Baseball America, published by Collier Books (Macmillan) in 1989. The consulting editor was Harry Wendelstedt. What is embarrassing is this comment from the answer: Going into the dugout does not affect the status of the runner except after a dropped third strike (Rule 6.09b). This is not abandoning his effort to run that only occurs between bases. Like the others on eteamz, when Cris Jones offered his official interpretation that the runner may return from the dugout, I was shocked: I had argued he could not. But I knew better. At least in my subconscious I knew better. So, eleven years before Cris's controversial ruling, Harry Wendlestedt and the editors at Baseball American had already told us the answer. Theres not much to this play on the NCAA/OBR level then: The runner beat the throw back to the plate. Score the run. On the other hand, in FED play as soon as the umpire determined that the runner would not return immediately, he would call time and declare him out. There is something to be said for that, anyway. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire [This message has been edited by Carl Childress (edited August 26, 2000).] 
|
|
Mon Aug 28, 2000, 04:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
Papa C I'll try and throw some "spark" on this Board.
I've been trying to rationalize those that have much more experience than I and use interpretations as you suggest, but on this play I just can't see it. I personally do not think Abner Double Day invented the game so that a play such as the one you described could happen. The runner has PLENTY of time to rectify his mistake before he / she ACTUALLY enters the dugout. If I see the runner making no attempt to rectify his mistake and he enters the dugout steps - WE HAVE AN OUT. Using your example suppose there were other runners on base. It makes no since to make F2 go after a runner when they enter the dugout or duggout area. The runner has some 5 to 10 seconds before they enter the dugout area. That's plenty of time If your answer is correct, Please tell me what the rationale is? As I stated this play sounds like a farce and a mockery of the game. I know when I umpire I will have to make some difficult calls out there otherwise play golf but allowing a player to come back out of the duggot! - Give me a break. Horrah for FED on this one. Pete Booth ------------------ Peter M. Booth
|
|
Mon Aug 28, 2000, 05:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: I agree. That's what the appeal "play" is for. No one is "making" F2 chase the runner in the dugout.
|
|
Mon Aug 28, 2000, 06:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Pete and Bob: I argued the same as you both. I was wrong. So are you. I don't make the rulings; I just report them. Wendelstedt's appeared in 1989. Eleven years later Cris Jones for the PBUC backed him up. That's a consistency over time that becomes official in my mind. Try this: Play: R2 scores on B1's single. The defense announces it will appeal that R2 missed third. As the pitcher steps off the rubber, B1 breaks for second. If the defense plays on him, it loses its right to appeal R3. That ain't fair. That's wrong. But it is the rule. Life is tough. ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire
|
|
Mon Aug 28, 2000, 06:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Papa C,
I believe Bob Jenkins is agreeing with you and the ruling. I think perhaps you misunderstood what he was saying. In short I agree with Bob, Papa C, Harry Wendelstedt, and Cris Jones. I'm afraid, Pete, you're on your own here - - so far, anyway. The rules have been created to specifically give the defense an advantage when this sort of play happens. All they have to do is tag the plate with the ball. So if a catcher enters the dugout and starts laying tags on everyone in sight, it's his own fault and his own doing. He should know the rules and how to play the game, and he should know that all he needed to do was touch the plate. I believe that's what Bob was saying also. Until an OBR youth league creates a differing interpretation for their level of play, all we have to go by is Cris Jones's ruling. To me, this ruling makes good sense. Sincerely, Jim Porter
|
|
Tue Aug 29, 2000, 08:04am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Yes -- Jim got it right. I was only "agreeing" with the part of Pete's message that I quoted. That is, I agree that it is unfair to "make" the catcher chase the runner, and, in fact, it's so "unfair" that he doesn't need to do so. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
|
|
Tue Aug 29, 2000, 08:55am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: "He should know the rules and how to play the game, and he should know that all he needed to do was touch the plate". Jim when you were a player did you actually know all the rules? I know I didn't - I let the umpire worry about it. I didn't really get into the rules untill I became an umpire and I was astonished about how little I really knew about the rules. I guess one what have to take a poll, but I would bet most catchers do not know this rule. Most people / coaches / players and even umpires would say that once a player enters the duggout - he has abandoned his / her right to retouch and would called out. I would argue this way - once the ball goes into dead ball territory we do not let play continue. During a Mets game about a week ago or so, Benny Agbayani of the Mets forgot how many outs there were. He caught a fly ball and thought there were 3 outs but there were only 2. As is customary at least at Shea lately is the players after the 3rd out is made throw the ball into the stands. Benny threw the ball into the stands and when he realized there were only 2 outs instead of 3 reached back into the stand to retrieve it. However, once the ball went into the stands, the umpires called the ball dead and made the appropriate awards. Therefore, my argument would be the player once entering the duggout is in dead ball territory and therefore, should not be allowed to come back out and rectify his mistake. I'm not trying to be argumentataive and refuse to accept published opinions but IMO we need more than Harry Wendelstedt and Chris Jones's opinions on this particular issue. Pete Booth
|
|
Tue Aug 29, 2000, 09:52am
|
|||
|
|||
Pete:
I am not sure what the "more" is for which you are waiting. Until they re-write OBR, it sounds like this is as clear as you are likely to get. (I do not know about you, but I suspect an OBR re-write will cause as many new problems as it fixes old ones). You are sadly correct that too many players (and coaches) do not know the rules of the game. Nevertheless, I have no problem with giving an advantage to those who know them. It is part of the game. ------------------ Take care, Mark
|
|
Tue Aug 29, 2000, 10:27am
|
|||
|
|||
quote: I have to agree with Mark. But you state the case poorly, Pete. The play from Baseball America that Harry "passed on" is merely authoritative opinion. It gets the same weight given Jim Evans or the J/R. But Chris's ruling from the PBUC is not "opinion"; it's official. You have to get that fixed in your mind. When the PBUC issues a statement about a rule, that is the official ruling regarding all professional umpires except those in the major leagues, and they must have specific instructions to the contrary or they, too, follow that ruling. Here's what you have to believe, Pete: Sometime that play happened in the major leagues, and that's why it showed up in the book. Harry agreed with their answer because that's what the MLU did when the play occurred. "Case book plays" never go unremarked by professional interpreters. Consequently, when Jim Booth asked that fateful question about a runner returning from the dugout to touch the plate, Cris delved into the files and found precedent. Look, when a situation is crystal, whether we like it or not, it is incumbant upon us as officials to follow the rules. Pete: Why is it three strikes but four balls? ------------------ Papa C Editor, eUmpire
|
|
Tue Aug 29, 2000, 10:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's what you have to believe, Pete: Sometime that play happened in the major leagues, and that's why it showed up in the book. Harry agreed with their answer because that's what the MLU did when the play occurred. Papa C at least the Board is hopping somewhat but that's not the main reason I posted this as I think it's good dialogue. The problem with this is one does not see this play on a regular basis, hence it probably happened once in a lifetime. My gut tells me that if this type of play would happen on a regular basis, the rule would change but since this is one of those "once in a bluemoon" type plays I doubt whether this will be re - worded or re-written. As far as why there are 3 strikes and 4 balls - I've always wondered that myself. In mens softball they already start with a 1-1 count. All I know is this: 7th game of World Series 2 out bottom of 9 score tied - r3 coming home - F2 misses tag r3 misses plate - PU - No Call. R3 enters duggout. F2 thinks 3 out and heads for his duggout to get ready for extra innings. Suddenly R3 comes back out of duggout touches Home - Game over - PU better have plenty of security and ESPN will have plenty to talk about. Thanks Papa C. Lets get this Board rolling. Pete Booth ------------------ Peter M. Booth
|
|
Wed Aug 30, 2000, 08:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Pete: The rules draw a significant distinction between a ball that is thrown or batted into dead ball territory (your example) and a ball that is carried into dead ball territory (this play). In the former case, the ball is certainly dead. In the latter case, however, the ball is alive and in play. What's more, Pete, the dugout is treated very differently to all other areas of dead ball territory (DBT). That is the whole point of the casebook comments to OBR 7.04(c). Any player who legally catches a fly ball and unintentionally enters DBT on the momentum of making the catch is also allowed to make a following play by throwing the ball from DBT. This is because the ball is still alive and in play. If your premise about the ball being dead when it is carried into DBT were true, this play could not occur. In the case in point, if the runner is allowed to return from the dugout to correct his baserunning error (PBUC ruling vide Cris Jones and Wendelstadt interpretation vide Baseball America) then the catcher must also be allowed to pursue him even into the dugout to make the out. OBR 7.10(d) does not REQUIRE him to appeal by tagging home plate, it only allows F2 that OPTION to avoid him having to chase the runner. This F2 chose to ignore the OBR 7.10(d) OPTION (who knows why), but that shouldn't operate to deprive the defense of a legitimate out for the offensive baserunning error. Also, since entering the dugout after reaching home base is NOT considered abandonment of the base paths, the runner must also be allowed a legitimate opportunity to correct his error within a reasonable time period. If the umpire adjudges that the runner was too long in the dugout, he might instead refuse to allow a correction and sustain an appeal. That is down to umpire judgement, according to Jones and the PBUC. In short, Pete, your example doesn't hold water against either the rules or the PBUC interpretation. Sorry. Cheers, mate. Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT
|
|
Thu Aug 31, 2000, 01:29pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Also, since entering the dugout after reaching home base is NOT considered abandonment of the base paths, the runner must also be allowed a legitimate opportunity to correct his error within a reasonable time period.
Warren thanks I now know my analogy was incorrect - but not to beat a dead horse exactly was is a reasonable amount of time? We say players (in this case F2) should know the rules. Well on a play at the plate when either F2 or r3 here nothing from the PU, they should know at that point; r3 didn't touch the plate and F2 didn't tag the runner otherwise they would have heard some sort of call - Out or Safe. Depending upon the ballpark - dugouts are a few feet away from home plate, therefore, reasonable amount of time could be up to the dugout steps - Again IMO that is plenty of time to correct one's mistake. As I stated earlier this type of scenario happens "once in a bluemoon" so it probably will not get much consideration. If this type of play were to happen on a regular basis it would receive more attention from the rulemakers and most likely be changed. I'm not saying it's right but I bet most umpires would rule a player out the moment he enters the dugout and probably would not get any flak from coaches for calling it that way. Again thanks for the input Pete Booth ------------------ Peter M. Booth
|
|
Thu Aug 31, 2000, 03:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Pete: Three points here. 1. Most fans think the hands are part of the bat. We know that ain't so. 2. What is one of the lurkers here or on eteamz, where the issues has also been decided, happens to be a coach at the game where one of the "most umpires" makes the wrong call? 2. You are no longer a part of the group called "most umpires." That's why you "hook on" to ask experts what the rules mean. Harry Wendelstedt (by proxmy) and Cris Jones (via Jim Booth) have told you what the rule is. Both Warren and I have given you the thinking behind the official interpretation. Now, your job, if you want it, is to help spread the word. Copy down Warren's explanation, add my play and answer, and show that around to other umpires. Some may scoff: Then you know they are fools. Some may not be interested. That will be the majority. Some will say: "Hey, Pete: Thanks, I didn't know that." If you convince two umpires, they may convince two others. That's how word of mouth changes the way baseball is offficiated by amateur umpires.
|
|
Thu Aug 31, 2000, 07:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Pete, It is umpire's judgement as to what constitutes "a reasonable amount of time", but according to my reading of Jones' (PBUC) interpretation that reasonable amount of time refers to time taken while actually in the dugout, not simply reaching the dugout. After all, the ruling was about returning after entering the dugout. In order to return from a place you actually have to get there first! Therefore it would make no difference how far the dugout is from Home Plate (minimum 60 feet recommended for professional fields). You can't use that interpretation you espouse to get around the PBUC ruling on a runner returning after entering the dugout, by simply saying time was up before the runner even entered the dugout in the first place. Sorry. Cheers, Warren Willson ------------------ Member and Co-Moderator, UT
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
