Runners Swap

[bob jenkins]

There's a FED interp to the effect that you call R1 out for passing, R2 out for running the bases in reverse and EJ the coach.

[MikeStrybel]

Agreed but that doesn't penalize the players for knowingly participating in a play that betrays fair play. Dump them all after calling the outs. The money we make isn't enough for dealing with this LL stuff. Forfeit the game and let the state, conference, league handle the coach and players.

As another wrote, look at the numbers, not the faces. When I log a conference, I note who is at bat and on base. That way a coach cannot tell me that he still has a conference or two left to burn. It's a good habit that takes ten seconds to record and saves the day when this happens.

[dash_riprock]

3 EJs and two outs is a penalty that fits the crime. And I won't listen to anyone except the new head coach, and I won't talk to him until the ejectees are out of sight and sound (the clock is running).

[DG]

2011 BRD number 427.

Now what do you do with the play that happened before the discovery?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by DG

2011 BRD number 427.

Now what do you do with the play that happened before the discovery?

Undo it. The inning ended before the batter did anything.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by DG

2011 BRD number 427.

Now what do you do with the play that happened before the discovery?

What is the play?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

3 EJs and two outs is a penalty that fits the crime. And I won't listen to anyone except the new head coach, and I won't talk to him until the ejectees are out of sight and sound (the clock is running).

Dash has it right....... This is the only way that the situation should end.... 2 out, 3 ejections (both runners & the OC). Just make damn sure you are correct as to who was where. Go to the score books if you have to but once you find it, you get 3 EJ's and that's all there is to it.

[DG]

Ok, I see I was not clear on what I was asking so let me rephrase.

Bottom 7th, tie game, 0 outs.

Batter hits a double, he is a slow runner. Next batter is fastest player on the team and he is intentional walked. Defensive coach goes to mound to talk with defense. Offensive coach calls runners over for discussion. When play resumes slow runner is on first and fast runner is on second. Batter hits first pitch for a hit, fast runner scores. Defensive coach comes out to complain that runners swapped.

I think we established two outs per FED interp, and some ejections (opinions vary on how many).

Now what do you do with the base hit that happened before the discovery?

[goodcall]

I was at the clinic monday night when this was asked and we had some excellent discussion about what to do about this.

Initially, after some hesitation since the pitch had already been thrown, we were convinced that we had one out for the runner passing another runner. If the umpires don't see it before the pitch is thrown, and the game is allowed to continue with no penalty, then it's the lady scorekeeper who will likely catch it when they cross the plate so then what are you going to do?

Getting two outs because you also have the runner running the bases backwards (that is if he did run back to first and you saw it) seems to clean everything up but it wasn't something anyone had said as a solution that night. The three ejections described in this thread went way beyond what any of us had mentioned but that should effectively put an end to anyone else trying such a thing and making a travesty out of the game. The two outs might adequately serve the same purpose though just as we would do on an interference for a double play when no one would need to be tossed. Though no one could argue tossing them, this may be a decision the federation may need to decide on what is best in such a situation.

The hit in my view stands just as it would when someone bats out of order and the next pitch is thrown.

[rbmartin]

If the swap occured without notice of the umpire and the #3 batter (Charles) scores while the #2 batter (Baker) is still on third, the the only reasonable conclusion would be that Charles passed Baker while running the bases. Call Charles out via 7.08(h). If still less than 3 outs, leave Baker where he's at. Leave Batter where he's at. Eject Charles and Coach when they start arguing with you.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by goodcall

I was at the clinic monday night when this was asked and we had some excellent discussion about what to do about this.

Initially, after some hesitation since the pitch had already been thrown, we were convinced that we had one out for the runner passing another runner. If the umpires don't see it before the pitch is thrown, and the game is allowed to continue with no penalty, then it's the lady scorekeeper who will likely catch it when they cross the plate so then what are you going to do?

Getting two outs because you also have the runner running the bases backwards (that is if he did run back to first and you saw it) seems to clean everything up but it wasn't something anyone had said as a solution that night. The three ejections described in this thread went way beyond what any of us had mentioned but that should effectively put an end to anyone else trying such a thing and making a travesty out of the game. The two outs might adequately serve the same purpose though just as we would do on an interference for a double play when no one would need to be tossed. Though no one could argue tossing them, this may be a decision the federation may need to decide on what is best in such a situation.

The hit in my view stands just as it would when someone bats out of order and the next pitch is thrown.

I don't think the next pitch legalizes blatant cheating like this. Any runner who is on the wrong base following a conference is going to be out, either for passing or running the bases in reverse. They will also be EJed along with any coach who participated in the conference. The batter didn't cheat so I'll let his at-bat stand.

I'm going to do my level best to enforce a penalty - within the rules - that sticks it as far up the O's butt as I can reach.

Bring on the protest. I can hardly wait.

[Gramps]

Look at the last sentence in 7.01

7.01 -- A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when that runner touches it before being put out. The runner is then entitled to it until put out or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his/her pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

This is an automatic out according to J/R.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Gramps

Look at the last sentence in 7.01

7.01 -- A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when that runner touches it before being put out. The runner is then entitled to it until put out or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his/her pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

This is an automatic out according to J/R.

Gramps,
Originally this was a discussion from a Fed clinic and the rules most of us are citing are NFHS. In OBR, NCAA and Fed, a runner cannot legally obtain a base different than his position, unless through a base award when time has been called. In addition, these bases were not unoccupied. Therefore, 7.01 does not apply, right?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

My apologies but which way is it? You stated that you don't care if the coach is complicit or not but then how you would consider his reputation in deciding his fate.

I'm not clear on what you are advocating.

I said I don't particularly care. In other words, I don't always care whether the coach is complicit. I can see a situation where I'm 100% confident the coach wasn't involved. In that situation, I wouldn't dump the coach.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I disagree.

Using this logic, a coach should be ejected when a player bats out of order too.

Please cite the rule that demands a coach be punished for negligence with regards to either situation.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I have seen players disregard directives of their coaches. From stealing or bunting when the score is already out of hand to blatant collisions when a coach is instructing the player to slide (bad blood between players, in this sitch), this occurs.

I have also seen players use equipment that is illegal. In at least one instance, the player attempted to use a bat that had been removed from the game. Do you eject the coach because the player tried to use a -10 bat? The coach afformed that all players were properly equipped during the plate meeting. Is he negligent because his player CHOSE to do something that is illegal? BTW, the penalty for using an illegal bat is an out, not player ejection.

I welcome discussion and know that I have been incorrect many times before. My wife reminds me daily.

There's a big difference between this and batting out of order. Batting out of order is a legitimate, but risky, tactic that is provided by and for in the rules. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it isn't attempted more often in lower level games where the opponents may not be as vigilant about the batting order.

Originally Posted by Gramps

Look at the last sentence in 7.01

7.01 -- A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when that runner touches it before being put out. The runner is then entitled to it until put out or forced to vacate it for another runner legally entitled to that base. If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his/her pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

This is an automatic out according to J/R.

I'm not an OBR ump so I don't have J/R. Does it mention specifically returning during a dead ball period or just returning in general?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I said I don't particularly care. In other words, I don't always care whether the coach is complicit. I can see a situation where I'm 100% confident the coach wasn't involved. In that situation, I wouldn't dump the coach.

Thanks, Eastshire. I agree that establishing intent is proper.

There's a big difference between this and batting out of order. Batting out of order is a legitimate, but risky, tactic that is provided by and for in the rules. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it isn't attempted more often in lower level games where the opponents may not be as vigilant about the batting order.

Not really. Intentionally placing an improper, good hitter at the plate is deceptive and the coach should be punished. Again, we fall back on establishing whether the coach should be held liable for a player doing this of his own volition. I don't see this happening in a Varsity game but in lower levels you are right, this is ripe for the picking. Thanks for the thoughts. I love this discussion!

Have a good season.