Runners Swap

[celebur]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Try this on for size:

8-2-3 affirms that a runner who misses a base while advancing may not return to touch it after a following runner has scored. A proper appeal did occur.

In the OP, did either runner miss a base?

3-3-1g (4) - A coach, player, substitute or other bench personnel shall not commit any unsportsmanlinke act to include, but not limited to, behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

At minimum, you have two ejections. Neither runner can deny that they didn't know where they should be at the start of the play. The coach should be dumped if you believe he was aware or instigated the deception. This isn't a court of law, you simply have to believe he conspired.

It is a stretch but you are also able to forfeit the game under 4-4-1d, since the team's deception was done in order to end the game. Let the state deal with the protest. Document the matter correctly and the head coach won't have a leg to stand on for the protest.

My initial reaction was that the coach should be auto-dumped; we need to hold him accountable for this kind of cheating regardless of whether he was aware of or instigated it.

[UmpTTS43]

You asked what do I got?

A lot of paperwork at the least. Minimum 3 ejs and will look for more.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by celebur

In the OP, did either runner miss a base?


My initial reaction was that the coach should be auto-dumped; we need to hold him accountable for this kind of cheating regardless of whether he was aware of or instigated it.

If the runners chose to swap bases then they would not be touching them in their rightful order.

As stated, I wuld probably have three ejections but would make it easy on myself. I can almost guarantee that when I explain to the coach why I just ejected both players after calling them out, he'll behave in a way that will easily demonstrate whether he was complicit or not. Chances are that he was but I have kids and know how to read body language pretty well by now.

Ever seen a player disobey a coach (stealing when told not to, throwing at a batter, taking out a fielder on a slide, etc.)? I have and it's pretty funny to see the coach implode.

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's also a reasonable conclusion that Charles and Baker batted out of order without being discovered. You would have to know with certainty the order Baker and Charles came to bat.

If I were convinced the players had switched positions on the bases, I definitely agree with dumping the players and the coach. I don't particularly care if the coach knows what's going on as he has a duty to prevent this stuff. That might vary depending on the coach's reputation though. (A coach that's know to be squeaky clean probably get the benefit of the doubt from me.)

I have a harder time with the outs, even if I like the idea of throwing every thing we can at them. How can we consider movement during a defensive conference to be running the bases (in either direction)? Are we going to start calling the trail runner out if he gets over to the third base coach first or stays longer than the lead runner?

Two outs may be the just solution, but I think it has dubious support in the rules.

[MikeStrybel]

I tossed this play around with a few umpire friends last night. One of the issues we considered is what is the appeal. I believe that the coach would be correct in appealing the RUNNING OF THE BASES, not the placement of the runners pre-pitch. In that instance, the runners did not touch the bases in their proper order, having swapped their original position. As time had been granted for the conference, both runners cannot move from their base unless a base award is granted. That did not happen. The pitch to the batter only began the appealable play.

As for the batter, I leave him on base because without his being there, the penalty for incorrectly running the bases is irrelevant. The B/R did nothing wrong. We have two outs, a runner on first. The two runners are ejected and depending on coach complicity, he may be as well. If the team cannot field the appropriate amount of players, we have a forefeit. Further, if you dump the coach because he ordered the swap, you can forefeit the game under 4-4-1d.

Great question! I hope someone can ask Fed for their take so that we can debate some more.

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If I were convinced the players had switched positions on the bases, I definitely agree with dumping the players and the coach. I don't particularly care if the coach knows what's going on as he has a duty to prevent this stuff. That might vary depending on the coach's reputation though. (A coach that's know to be squeaky clean probably get the benefit of the doubt from me.)

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.

[mbyron]

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.

The coach has a duty to supervise his runners and a responsibility for their on-field behavior. If he didn't tell them to switch places, he negligently allowed it. He's not entitled to the benefit of any doubt if this happens, and he's ejected in my game.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The coach has a duty to supervise his runners and a responsibility for their on-field behavior. If he didn't tell them to switch places, he negligently allowed it. He's not entitled to the benefit of any doubt if this happens, and he's ejected in my game.

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.

[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.

[mbyron]

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.

Batting out of order and using an illegal bat are not the same order of cheating, are much more common, and have rules specifically addressed to them. These facts all tell against your inference that my ruling applies equally to them.

Not every possible act of cheating is addressed in the rules. Sometimes you just gotta umpire. I'm not telling you how to run your games, just reporting what I would do. And my approach seems consistent with the respected voices of this forum.

[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?