Bush League but it almost happened last night

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2003 FED Interps, Situation 3: During a time-out, with runners on first and second base, R2 switches places with R1 because he is faster and plans on stealing third base when the game resumes. RULING: When detected, the umpire will award two outs to the defense, warn the coach and eject R2 and R1. One out is assessed for passing a runner and another out is for running the bases in reverse order. This infraction may be corrected during a dead ball when detected by the umpire, defensive team or offensive team. (3-3-1g, 8-4-2m, n)

(Any typos are likely mine. The R1, R2 notation is FED's)

This interp gives you the right to call 2 outs if the runners switch places.

Problem is, it says one is out for running the bases backward, and the other is out for passing.

And NEITHER of these happen in the OP. I believe the reasoning they give for 2 outs is faulty, but since this is the most recent interpretation that is even close to the OP, and the 2 outs they give us refer to things that don't happen in the OP, I cannot justify 2 outs here, even though I think that's what FED wants here.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I cannot justify 2 outs here, even though I think that's what FED wants here.

I'm trying to visualize what I might write in a report to our state office. I can certainly justify EJs for Unsportsmanlike Conduct [3-3-1g(4)], but I don't see how I can justify outs.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So you have a reference that the interp is no longer valid?

Yes, common sense. Wait, we're using FED...

In all seriousness, there's probably a reason that this is a) not in the casebook, and b) not located anywhere. My hunch is that they realized how it doesn't have a basis by rule. I can't enforce something that only has an existing basis on stevetheump's website.

I'll be quite straightforward--I'm not enforcing outs here, FED or not. If this ever were to happen, I'd tell the DC to protest my not giving any outs, and see what comes of it.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Matt

I'll be quite straightforward--I'm not enforcing outs here, FED or not. If this ever were to happen, I'd tell the DC to protest my not giving any outs, and see what comes of it.

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD you do?

Suppose after the base switch, the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter singles to knock home the lead runner from second, and the trail runner moves to second. The DC comes out and protests that the runner at second was originally the lead runner, and you verify that fact by checking your lineup card. Would you allow the run? Would you require a do-over?

Originally Posted by Matt

In all seriousness, there's probably a reason that this is a) not in the casebook, and b) not located anywhere.

I realize we're talking baseball here. But as I posted before, the interp is located somewhere. It's a FED Softball case play.

Also, ASA Softball has this in its rule book under the "Runner is Out" section, 8-7:

Y. When base runners switch positions on the bases they occupied following any conference.
EFFECT: Each runner on an improper base shall be declared out. In addition, the manager shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

And in the NCAA Softball rule book, you'll find this under section 12.5, the "Base Runner is Out after a Proper Appeal" section:

12.5.3 When, after a conference, base runners switch positions on the bases they occupied, the ball has been put back in play, and before the end of the half-inning.
EFFECT—Each base runner on the improper base shall be declared out and ejected. In addition, the head coach shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike behavior. (Behavioral ejections.)

I find it interesting that NCAA Softball requires an appeal for this. I'm willing to bet there's similar language in other softball rule books (PONY, USSSA, etc.)

Why it's all over the place in softball, but not in baseball is beyond me. In my experience, baseball has more incidents of this kind of unsporting crap than the girls' game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Matt

In all seriousness, there's probably a reason that this is a) not in the casebook,

So we're to the "if an interp doesn't make it to the case book is it valid?" question. One that's been around for a long time, and never answered (afaik) by FED.

(This question comes up from time to time, and in other sports.)

[Dexter555]

Interesting case, and I think one likely to happen more often as word spreads and coaches get increasingly "creative" in their efforts to win. Has anyone taken this back to their state association/interpreter or local associations? I'm inactive right now (but eager to get back in) so don't have access. I'd love to know what they say.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yes, common sense. Wait, we're using FED...

This is just about as true a statement I've ever read, and (along with the organizational politics) it explains why I no longer work FED baseball or soccer.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD you do?

Suppose after the base switch, the pitcher delivers the pitch, the batter singles to knock home the lead runner from second, and the trail runner moves to second. The DC comes out and protests that the runner at second was originally the lead runner, and you verify that fact by checking your lineup card. Would you allow the run? Would you require a do-over?

I really don't know. In this particular sequence, the thing for me is how would I verify it after the fact? I'm very cognizant of verifying runners before the fact, so the chances of this happening to me are next to none, but I don't know how I would verify the DC's assertion.

But let's say it somehow happens. The one thing I can tell you is that I'm still ejecting. I don't know if I would let it stand or if I would have a do-over.

Is there a case play for, say, the defense playing the first batter with 10 on the field and getting an out? If there is, I would use the same principle.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Matt

I really don't know. In this particular sequence, the thing for me is how would I verify it after the fact? I'm very cognizant of verifying runners before the fact, so the chances of this happening to me are next to none, but I don't know how I would verify the DC's assertion.

But let's say it somehow happens. The one thing I can tell you is that I'm still ejecting. I don't know if I would let it stand or if I would have a do-over.

Is there a case play for, say, the defense playing the first batter with 10 on the field and getting an out? If there is, I would use the same principle.

I have trouble thinking of how this could be verified after the fact as well. "She was on 2nd, she should have been on first" - I can probably verify that she was on 2nd ... but if I missed the fact that they moved up during the time out, I'm probably not aware enough to know for certain that she should have been on first.

The switched places scenario is more readily verifiable - especially if only one runner scored and the other (wrong) one is still on base.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I have trouble thinking of how this could be verified after the fact as well. "She was on 2nd, she should have been on first" - I can probably verify that she was on 2nd ... but if I missed the fact that they moved up during the time out, I'm probably not aware enough to know for certain that she should have been on first.

The switched places scenario is more readily verifiable - especially if only one runner scored and the other (wrong) one is still on base.

Let's try this on for size.

R2, R3, one out. Double (potential triple) to right. R2, after rounding third, starts to go back to second, thinking the ball was caught. Throw comes to third while both BR and R2 are between second and third. Somehow, in the jumble, BR ends up on third and R2 ends up on second. You don't catch it, and the defense doesn't either (hey, they're just happy only one run scored.) After the next batter singles and advances both, DC has the light-bulb moment.

Can you go back and fix it? I say no.

[Matt]

Speaking of light-bulb moments, I just had it!

You can get outs on the switch, but not how FED wants it.

If the offense had a conference, and came out if it with two brand new runners, we would call it a substitution (unannounced, potentially.) I think if they do the switch with existing runners, we have two illegal substitutions. Bam! Both are out and restricted.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Matt

Speaking of light-bulb moments, I just had it!

You can get outs on the switch, but not how FED wants it.

If the offense had a conference, and came out if it with two brand new runners, we would call it a substitution (unannounced, potentially.) I think if they do the switch with existing runners, we have two illegal substitutions. Bam! Both are out and restricted.

Simply brilliant. And you know you're going to get the coach too.

If this situation arises, I will definitely use this. Go ahead and protest, bitch.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Matt

Speaking of light-bulb moments, I just had it!

You can get outs on the switch, but not how FED wants it.

If the offense had a conference, and came out if it with two brand new runners, we would call it a substitution (unannounced, potentially.) I think if they do the switch with existing runners, we have two illegal substitutions. Bam! Both are out and restricted.

How can you have any substitution when both players are already in the lineup?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by CT1

How can you have any substitution when both players are already in the lineup?

Why not? Probably the most common illegal sub is when both players are in the lineup. The DH goes on defense without his defensive counterpart coming out.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Matt

Why not? Probably the most common illegal sub is when both players are in the lineup. The DH goes on defense without his defensive counterpart coming out.

Apples to oranges. The DH is the only one in the batting order.