I saw this on another board (Troll Central ) and thought I'd bring it over here to see how you guys would handle. it. It's a pretty ugly situation and absolutely a no win for the PU. He messed up, bad.

Anyway, here's what was on the message board.

<b> -------------------------------------------------------

Last night I received a call from a coach of a team we service in our association. He played a district game at another school serviced by a different association. His team lost 1-0. Anyway he asked me about a play that happened in the 5th inning. He had runners on 1st and 2nd, 2 outs 3-2 count on batter, everyone is running on the pitch. The pitch ball is thrown in the dirt, the batter swings and misses, but takes off running to 1st base, the umpire says strike 3, batter out now the catcher rolls the ball back to the pitching circle, meanwhile the runners are still running, the umpire stops play. Of course the coach comes out and asked the umpire about the ball in the dirt and the umpire said he was sorry but by him saying the batter was out, it effectively killed the play ....anyway the coach was not happy but the play stood. Any comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------</b>

Now, I'm thinking I can use rule 10.2.3.m and place the girl on 1st. It ain't gonna be good, but it's the best you can get on something like this, I think.


What do ya'll think?

You mean 10-2-3(m).

TexBlue
By awarding the runner you do a disservice to the defense.
By awarding the runner you are saying the catcher would not have completed the throw to first.
mick

Originally posted by Mick

<b> By awarding the runner you do a disservice to the defense.
By awarding the runner you are saying the catcher would not have completed the throw to first.
<u>

</b> </u>


Yep, you're right. But, you're gonna do disservice to one team or the other. I just think you gotta try to find the best solution possible, with the understanding that anything you do is gonna upset someone. I took this position on the other board, so I'll present it here too.

Rule 10-2-3-m says, " The plate duties include Art 1 and also the following............

m. rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team in jeopardy."

Now, let me defend my stand here. If I blew the call and called her out on what was obviously a dropped 3rd strike, that is protestable. ( Rule interpretation.) So, the runner is not out. You have put her in jeopardy by declaring her out. She, in most cases, will be heading to 1st until she hears me declare her out. The catcher knew the ball hit the dirt. How many times over the years, have you had a catcher come up ready to throw to 1st just in case you think she dropped the ball? She knows it's not an out and should be going to 1st anyway. The 1st baseman should have seen the ball hit the dirt. The defense had the advantage of seeing the ball hit the dirt, which the batter did not. Granted the offensive coaches did also. But, again, the batter usually quits running when she hears "... batter is out!" Thus you have put the batter-runner in jeopardy.

I'm gonna get my tail ripped pretty hard anyway, and I deserve it. So, I'm gonna put the batter on 1st and move all others up one base and play at least one more batter.

Now, to reiterate, this was not me doing this. I just think I'd have to handle it this way if I ever do a boneheaded play like this. I don't think there is a good solution to this play. I just think this is the lesser of 2 evils. If you stick by the batter being out, there is absolutely no way they can recover the possiblity of winning the game. If you put her on base, at least the defense has the chance of getting the out still. And the PU still needs to take the heat from one or both of the coaches. I just don't think you can end a game this way in good concience.

TexBlue,
For this situation, instead of the wistful 10-2-3(m), I prefer to use 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. (Sitch said two outs, batter out.)

If we use 10-2-3(m) for undoing a declared "out", where the defense quit, should we then use the same thought for undoing a "foul call" after the defense quits playing? In that case would we simply put the better on third, or all the way home? There are no cases in 10.2 to support the use of 10-2-3(m) for the purpose you politely suggest.

Tried to fool me dintcha? ;)
mick

Okay, how 'bout this? If I mistakenly call a runner going to 2nd out, and they stand off the base, just looking at me, do I call them out, when tagged off the base? I put that runner in jeopardy, just like "Strike 3! Batter's out! Oops, my bad, I'm wrong, but she's still out." I just don't feel you can take away the last chance to win by a boneheaded call like this. Take the heat, but try to get it right. You can't get it totally right, but you can put the 2 teams back on as even a playing field as possible.

Have you noticed that no one else is even venturing an opinion on this?

TexBlue,
Yer fishin' with the wrong lure.<li>[<i>Batter standing off base because he was "mistakenly" called out? :rolleyes:</i>]

Now, we agree, this ain't gonna happen to you, or me, or any of us that are reading this thing, right? ;)

Of all the uncaught third strikes we've seen, is it possible the batter could beat that throw (ball in catcher's hand, if played out) more than 2% of the time?
If we wanna guess, let's guess with 98% probability.

mick

Originally posted by mick:

<b> Now, we agree, this ain't gonna happen to you, or me, or any of us that are reading this thing, right?
__________________________________________________ _________
</b>

Absolutely. (Now, watch, I'll go brain dead next week). But, and I oughtta clarify my previous post a little, if I meant safe and called the runner out and the runner is just looking at me in disbelief, I cannot now call her out if the defense tags her while off the base, after I've mistakenly given the wrong call. I've now put her in jeopardy by vocally giving the wrong call. Did any of that make sense? If so, then, it should apply to the original scenario also.

And you're right about the probablity of getting to 1st safely. I just don't think you can take the last chance to win away from a team without any recourse at all. I'm not even gonna say this is right, it just seems closer to right than ending the game is. Doing it this way, at least the defense has a chance to still win. By not doing it this way, the game ends and the offense has no chance at all.

TexBlue,
It seems, though probably subconsciously, in this situation you are favoring the "visiting" offense.

The rule must apply across the board every situation.
Assume the original post, but now, placing the runner on first has jammed the bases and:
<LI>The pitcher hurt her shoulder on the last pitch, and/or
<LI>The next batter is batting .850 against the pitcher and/or <LI>The home team is batting, the bases were loaded and the winning run from third trotted in to score, because the pitcher and catcher were shaking hands.

<B><font color = red><i>Doing it this way, at most the defense has little chance to still win. By doing it this way, the game ends and the defense has little chance at all." </font></i></B>

mick
<HR>
T'is a tangled web we weave,....

Interestingly enough, had this exact situation happen last Saturday. Bottom of 7, runners on 1 and 3, 2 outs, 3-2 pitch, called strike 3, PU (not me) comes up with "Strike 3, batter is out". In the mean time, the catcher is chasing the ball to the back stop, batter goes to first, runner from 3 scores to tie the game while the catcher unsuccessfully tries to throw the batter out at first. Defense coach wants the game called because PU called the batter out, offense wants to play on. We finally decided that since the rule allows the batter to advance, and the three primary players who should know the rule (batter, catcher and first base) all played on like nothing unusual had happened, we let the play stand, took the heat and went on to extra innings. You gotta love this game.

Ahhhhhh, the exact end result I woulda given. Although the catcher and other defensive participants kept on playing, I still think you gotta let the teams decide the game.

Originally posted by mick:

<b> TexBlue,
It seems, though probably subconsciously, in this situation you are favoring the "visiting" offense.

The rule must apply across the board every situation.
Assume the original post, but now, placing the runner on first has jammed the bases and:

The pitcher hurt her shoulder on the last pitch, and/or

The next batter is batting .850 against the pitcher and/or

The home team is batting, the bases were loaded and the winning run from third trotted in to score, because the pitcher and catcher were shaking hands.
__________________________________________________ _________

</b>

The 1st 2 scenarios are immaterial to the mangled rule in question. If the last one is the actual situation ( bases loaded ) I'm heading for the exits real fast. The PU can fend for him/herself and try to get out of this situation.

Nawwwww, I guess in that situation, and that one only, you gotta stick by the original call. For the same reason I quoted before. You can't let one team win or lose because of your call/rule interpretation if it is at all fixable. In this last case, you either have to let a team win or lose and it's gonna happen right then at that moment. So, like you mentioned earlier, you can't appear to be favoring the offense by letting them win by awarding all runners one base. This prevents the defense from having a chance, which was my reasoning for letting the BR go to 1st with only 2 runners on base.

I think at least we can all agree, <b> <font:12>THIS IS A REAL UGLY SITUATION! </B> </FONT:12>

TexBlue,
So your only application is with runners on 1st and 2nd, two out, an uncaught 3rd strike wherethe catcher quits because the Umpire verbalizes, "Out!" ---> Disregard defense reaction.

So, what happens when a batted ball is Fair with runners on 1st and 2nd, two out, the fielders quit because the Umpire verbalizes, "Foul!" ---> Disregard defense reaction ? ;)

mick

Originally posted by mick:

<b> So, what happens when a batted ball is Fair with runners on 1st and 2nd, two out, the fielders quit because the Umpire verbalizes, "Foul!" ---> Disregard defense reaction ?
__________________________________________________ _________
</b>

I'm assuming this was a fair ball and not foul, winning run on 2nd, right? If so, this is another one of those situations where I'm running for the nearest exit that doesn't involve a dugout. Since I couldn't have made a mistake like that, my partner is own their own.

[Edited by TexBlue on Mar 22nd, 2004 at 12:04 AM]

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

Let's assume that the umpire decides to let his call stand.

Offense officially protests. The protest would be upheld, since the batter-runner was NOT out by rule, and the defense made no play to retire her.

On U3K, the assumption of the NFHS rule book is that the defense is required to know the situation. The umpire is not responsible for DC plays.

The catcher knew (or should have known) this situation, yet the catcher rolled the ball into the infield.

So, the offense protests. The protest is upheld. The game continues from the point of the overturned call.

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.

As bad as this situation is, the facts are the BR is NOT out (despite the umpire's call - since this was NOT a judgment call), and the defense is required to know the game situation. Since the BR is NOT out, the game is NOT over. The game must be continued with as fair a resolution as possible.

What would I do? BFOM. But I probably would NOT just allow the game to end. 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").

Dakota,
What page is that on?
What is "DC plays" ?
Thanks,
mick

Originally posted by Dakota:

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

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.

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.")

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by chuck chopper;

<b> > 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.
__________________________________________________ _
</b>

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

Also, misapplication of rules <b> are </b> protestable.

<b> __________________________________________________ _
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.
__________________________________________________
</b>

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.

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

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

Damn skippy they are!

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

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?

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.

An answer can only be guessed.

<LI>Some factors to be evaluated:
<LI>Team records.
<LI>Future meeting of the teams.
<LI>Cost and location of completion.
<LI>Score at point of protest.
<LI>Game situation of re-start.
<LI>Who will umpire. ;)

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

mick

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

Originally posted by mick:

<B> 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.
__________________________________________________ _________
</B>

Now, in my opinion, all these factors are irrelevant to the decision of a protest. The BR simply has to be safe despite team records or future meetings or any of the aforementioned factors.

Besides, in Texas there are no protests in NFHS. Which is why you simply <B> have </B> to try to resolve it as fairly as possible. It wouldn't be so bad if this wrong call didn't end the game.

Here I am again on this. The ASA will not allow a protest on a play that failed to "conclude" because of the Umpire.
If it concluded, and a rule was botched it is protestable.
Thus on this play the BR is out.
Even if the ASA changed the application of a protest to allow one in this situation, the game would go back to a full count on the batter.
The BR would never be awarded first, so I cannot find clause for allowing that.
Thus I go back to my 1st response and say I wish we "would" allow a protest, and fix it right then and there.

And, you know this how? The only thing I see in Rule 9 is ASA will not allow a protest on anything that purely involves the accuracy of the umpire's judgment.This presupposes you are finding a "clause" to disallow the protest on the grounds the umpire screwed up very badly, instead of just badly. Again, where are you finding these clauses? Is there more written on allowed / disallowed protests than Rule 9? POE 41? Case Book section 9?Since you've morphed this over to ASA, using 10-6C (very similar to the NFHS 10-2-3m), how would you fix this? That is the real question, isn't it?

Originally posted by chuck chopper:

<B> Here I am again on this. The ASA will not allow a protest on a play that failed to "conclude" because of the Umpire.
If it concluded, and a rule was botched it is protestable.
Thus on this play the BR is out.
__________________________________________________ _________

</B>

I've looked in Rule 9 and the POE's. Where does it say that?
<B> __________________________________________________ _______

Even if the ASA changed the application of a protest to allow one in this situation, the game would go back to a full count on the batter.
The BR would never be awarded first, so I cannot find clause for allowing that.
__________________________________________________ ________
</B>

This is another solution I hadn't considered. It wouldn't place a tying run at 3rd, instead of 2nd. And you have the same batter, ( and not possibly a much better or worse one ) at the plate. So, I guess this is your "do over" solution? This would also take away the possibility of the catcher not making a good throw to 1st and allowing the runners to advance. You've taken away all the unpredictable possibilities except for a pitcher throwing a strike or ball and the batter's actions at the time of the pitch. Although I can't think of anywhere in the rule book where you can permit a "do over" I still think ASA's 10-6-c would prevail here and, by my interpretation, place the BR at 1st. But, like I said, your solution, if allowable, puts the situation in an almost identical situation as before the blown call.

Might work, might work, if you can convince the coaches the pitch never happened.

Dakota, looks like you and I were typing at the same time. And thinking the same way on allowing the protest.