Time to run and hide?

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by Dakota:

First, I've read the first couple of posts on this topic, but only scanned the rest, so I apoligize if this is repetitive.
__________________________________________________ _________


Well, we both talked about the same end result, but we came at it from different angles. We made a lot of the same points, so, hopefully we're on the right track. Of course, mick had some good points also.

Let's assume this was a ASA game. Rule 10-6c would apply here. Maybe we can get more discussion on it this way, instead of it being a Fed game.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mick
[Dakota,
What page is that on?
What is "DC plays" ?
Thanks,
mick

It is an inference from rule 8-6-18, which says that a retired BR is not guilty of interference if she runs to 1st base as if the U3K rule was in effect. IOW, the defense is required to KNOW that the batter is out and not throw to 1st attempting to retire her again, and if they do so and as a result another runner advances, well, DC. ("Dumb catcher.")

[chuck chopper]

I refer to this years ASA test RE: What to do when an ump calls infield fly, when its not !, and the players just let the ball fall, and batter reaches first.
This is not correctable. The players have to know the rule and play it out. Otherwise the play stands. Thus in this situation the ump messed up, but the runner & coaches should know the rule. It is not correctable nor can a protest be made.
Again, this would be consistant with what the ASA Guru's want us to do in these situations.
Do I agree with it??. NO. My recommendations do not figure into the resolution, so no point in kicking that around.

[TexBlue]

OK, chuck chopper, I'm not sure what you meant. Let the game end? Or put the runner on 1st? Or something else?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by chuck chopper
nor can a protest be made.

Where do you get that?

Also, let's not send this thread down another path dealing with IFR.

However, to make your situation analogous, you'd make th erroneous IFR call the final out of the game (even though by rule that can't be), have the umpire kill the play (halting any runners trying to advance, etc.), and conclude that the umpire should stick with his out call on the BR, game over. I don't think that is what ASA had in mind with that situation.

Remember, the situation presented was the umpire declared the U3K rule did NOT apply (when it did), and he declared the BR OUT (when she wasn't), killed all ongoing action, and declared the game over (when it wasn't).

Since he killed the play, there is no play to let stand.

[chuck chopper]

The result of the play. IE..Batter did not finish running to first, thus the game ended with BR out.
That is the end of the inning.
.
Not correctable, not protestable. Unfortunate..Definatley.
.
Since you brought it up however, mistakes we make (misapplication of rules) should be protestible and since the only "FAIR" action is take the play over. I think perhaps that should be considered sometime in the future.
You can't award something that did not happen, and you can't support something that happened that should not have either.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by chuck chopper;

> Since you brought it up however, mistakes we make (misapplication of rules) should be protestible and since the only "FAIR" action is take the play over.
__________________________________________________ _


Are you talking about a "do over" like in volleyball?

Also, misapplication of rules are protestable.

__________________________________________________ _
The result of the play. IE..Batter did not finish running to first, thus the game ended with BR out.
That is the end of the inning.
__________________________________________________


Now, the BR quit running when she heard " .... Batter is out!" This means you placed her in jeopardy, which violates the rule in all the rule books.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dakota

It is an inference from rule 8-6-18, which says that a retired BR is not guilty of interference if she runs to 1st base as if the U3K rule was in effect. IOW, the defense is required to KNOW that the batter is out and not throw to 1st attempting to retire her again, and if they do so and as a result another runner advances, well, DC. ("Dumb catcher.")
__________________
Tom

Dakota,
Well, yeah.
The defense would know, because, the runner was "declared out". What the ump says... goes.

REF: 2-38-1: "An out is a declaration by the umpire indicating an offensive player has been retired. Each team is entitled to three outs per inning."

Using 8-6-18 as a guideline that the defense should deny themselves the declaration, by umpires, is quite a stretch from not declaring interference on an uncaught third strike.
If we stretch this interpretation to a home plate declaration of out, do we then, for consistancy, go to all the bases and have each fielder question each and every out where they know they pulled their foot, yet received an advantageous call? (ie, Two outs runner on third, throw to first. (“Out!”) First baseman knows foot was slightly pulled, but risking a call reversal rolls ball to the mound,… or fires to Home plate for potential 4th out.)

The Ump made the call. If an allowable protest must be made, so be it.

mick

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mick

Dakota,
Well, yeah.
The defense would know, because, the runner was "declared out". What the ump says... goes.

REF: 2-38-1: "An out is a declaration by the umpire indicating an offensive player has been retired. Each team is entitled to three outs per inning."

Using 8-6-18 as a guideline that the defense should deny themselves the declaration, by umpires, is quite a stretch from not declaring interference on an uncaught third strike.
If we stretch this interpretation to a home plate declaration of out, do we then, for consistancy, go to all the bases and have each fielder question each and every out where they know they pulled their foot, yet received an advantageous call? (ie, Two outs runner on third, throw to first. (“Out!”) First baseman knows foot was slightly pulled, but risking a call reversal rolls ball to the mound,… or fires to Home plate for potential 4th out.)

The Ump made the call. If an allowable protest must be made, so be it.

mick

Can we keep this topic off of judgment calls and onto misapplication of the rules calls? On a judgment call, when the umpire judges the player to be out, she's out. On a misapplication of the rule, no, she isn't out. It may be old smallball tradition that an out call can never be recinded, but that is not the case with softball.

How this gets resolved is the big question.

However, there is no play to let stand, since the umpire killed the play. You can't declare the BR out for entering the dugout after the umpire killed the play.

The game is not over since the final "out" was a misapplication of the rules.

The question is, how to resolve it so the players can end the game.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dakota

Can we keep this topic off of judgment calls and onto misapplication of the rules calls? On a judgment call, when the umpire judges the player to be out, she's out. On a misapplication of the rule, no, she isn't out. It may be old smallball tradition that an out call can never be recinded, but that is not the case with softball.

How this gets resolved is the big question.

However, there is no play to let stand, since the umpire killed the play. You can't declare the BR out for entering the dugout after the umpire killed the play.

The game is not over since the final "out" was a misapplication of the rules.

The question is, how to resolve it so the players can end the game.

Dakota,
I certainly agree with the subject of the "big question" of how to resolve the original play.

My resolution was to have the batter be out and follow protest procedures if necessary.
TexBlue wanted the Batter on first and continue the game.
Chuck chopper may be suggesting a rule change and do over.
I miss your suggestion.

mick

[Skahtboi]

Originally posted by TexBlue
Also, misapplication of rules are protestable.

Damn skippy they are!

Any coach who didn't protest this misapplication of the rules would be doing his team a disservice!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mick
My resolution was to have the batter be out and follow protest procedures if necessary.

I have no problem with this in principle, but since we are down to the last out of the game, it seems very inefficient.

Assuming it went to this, what do you think the protest committee would rule?

Originally posted by mick
I miss your suggestion.

Originally posted by Dakota
The umpire, realizing he has misapplied the rule, could (using 10-2-3m as his authority) act as a mini-protest committee and uphold the "protest" against his own call and go from there.... My inclination would be to place the BR on 1st, since the offense was the team placed in greater jeopardy by the call (since the defense knew the "truth").

[rafking]

Great discussion.
I wonder if we can use some situations from the NFHS case book to help.

10.2.3 sitch D - covers the infield fly wrong call. It clearly places the responsibility on both teams no matter what how the ump was trying to end the play. So it states that they should play on. Eventually someone (players, coach, fans) will start screaming and the action will start again. I could only see it officially ending if a player has entered the dugout, then a legal out would occur.

10.2.3. sitch F - Somewhat helps us in the dropped 3K. It discusses when a checked swing ball four with ball dropped by catcher is appealed for a third strike by BU. The PU will make decision if batter would have made it to first using 10-2-3m. I imagine the PU decision would be based on the position of the ball and catcher. If ball bounced 10 feet away or more, then maybe award first base to BR.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dakota

I have no problem with this in principle, but since we are down to the last out of the game, it seems very inefficient.

Assuming it went to this, what do you think the protest committee would rule?

An answer can only be guessed.

Some factors to be evaluated:

Team records.

Future meeting of the teams.

Cost and location of completion.

Score at point of protest.

Game situation of re-start.

Who will umpire.

Quite possibly those questions may be worked out before everyone goes home with no protest filed.

mick

[mick]

Originally posted by rafking
Great discussion.
I wonder if we can use some situations from the NFHS case book to help.

10.2.3 sitch D - covers the infield fly wrong call. It clearly places the responsibility on both teams no matter what how the ump was trying to end the play. So it states that they should play on. Eventually someone (players, coach, fans) will start screaming and the action will start again. I could only see it officially ending if a player has entered the dugout, then a legal out would occur.

10.2.3. sitch F - Somewhat helps us in the dropped 3K. It discusses when a checked swing ball four with ball dropped by catcher is appealed for a third strike by BU. The PU will make decision if batter would have made it to first using 10-2-3m. I imagine the PU decision would be based on the position of the ball and catcher. If ball bounced 10 feet away or more, then maybe award first base to BR.

rafking,
I think those cases are fine for what they are, but in neither instance does the umpire declare the player "Out!".
mick