Screwed up BOO - Do you intervene?

[mcrowder]

OK, proper order is #10, #6, #9, #1. #9 is their best, and only really good player.

#10 walks. #9 comes up and hits a home run. #6 comes to the plate and takes a pitch (#9's homer is now legit.) After the pitch, coaches come out to complain. I listened very carefully to their arguments and only responded directly to what they said. ALL of the comments were about #9 being the improper batter. Not once does anyone protest or even mention that #6 is also out of order.

So I left #6 out there - waiting for either offense or defense to mention taht #6 shouldn't be out there, but neither do. I KNOW the offensive coach was aware that she was risking an out here, but saw the opportunity to get #9 to the plate again. Then after #6's out, coaches blow up (it takes my best "Game management" to keep these coaches in the game) as #9 comes up again, and yet again, NO ONE mentions protesting #6.

So #9 came up and hit another homer.

My question - do ANY of you, at any point in this, mention that #6 is wrong, or perhaps even direct #1 to take over #6's at bat after the first pitch? And if so, at what point do you do something... or do you simply do what I did?

[Dakota]

Do what you did. I would not consider helping an opposing coach with when to make a BOO appeal to be preventative umpiring, even though I may anticipate the offense is intentionally cheating to take advanage of a lack of rules knowledge on the defense.

Did you consider USC on the offensive coach for cheating? (Not that I would have done that, either,... just asking.)

[Andy]

I answer the questions asked and address the comments that are presented.

"Coach, you have thrown a pitch to the current batter (#6), you cannot appeal any previous batters at this point."

After #6 bats: "Coach, the last batter was #6, she is followed in the order by #9."

Which is probably close to what you did. To do anything else would be providing one team with an advantage. The coaches have access to the rulebook just like you do. If they can't figure out how to make the proper appeal in this situation, it's not your job to do it for them.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

OK, proper order is #10, #6, #9, #1. #9 is their best, and only really good player.

#10 walks. #9 comes up and hits a home run. #6 comes to the plate and takes a pitch (#9's homer is now legit.) After the pitch, coaches come out to complain. I listened very carefully to their arguments and only responded directly to what they said. ALL of the comments were about #9 being the improper batter. Not once does anyone protest or even mention that #6 is also out of order.

So I left #6 out there - waiting for either offense or defense to mention taht #6 shouldn't be out there, but neither do. I KNOW the offensive coach was aware that she was risking an out here, but saw the opportunity to get #9 to the plate again. Then after #6's out, coaches blow up (it takes my best "Game management" to keep these coaches in the game) as #9 comes up again, and yet again, NO ONE mentions protesting #6.

So #9 came up and hit another homer.

My question - do ANY of you, at any point in this, mention that #6 is wrong, or perhaps even direct #1 to take over #6's at bat after the first pitch? And if so, at what point do you do something... or do you simply do what I did?

I would have told #6 to sit down and put #1 in the box assuming the count.

Even if #6 was mentioned, there is no penalty until #6 finishes their turn at bat. Would have skipped #9 as that batter just completed THEIR turn at bat.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would have told #6 to sit down and put #1 in the box assuming the count.

By, or just by fairness? If by fairness, where do you draw the line between coaching the defense and making the offense follow the rules?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

By, or just by fairness? If by fairness, where do you draw the line between coaching the defense and making the offense follow the rules?

Preventive umpiring. If the coach has come out to complain about the batting order, even though not that particular batter, I'm not going to sit there and wait for a fustercluck to occur when I can correct the situation especially at a point where there is no penalty. If the defensive coach complains, I'll just let him/her know that they initiated the situation and I just corrected it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Preventive umpiring. If the coach has come out to complain about the batting order, even though not that particular batter, I'm not going to sit there and wait for a fustercluck to occur when I can correct the situation especially at a point where there is no penalty. If the defensive coach complains, I'll just let him/her know that they initiated the situation and I just corrected it.

I agree you can get away with this, but how do you rationalize the rule book wording that says that BOO is an appeal that must be brought by the defense? How is "filling in" the appeal to cover all appealable BOO violations different from ruling on all missed bases on a play when one is appealed?

I realize the fustercluck can happen, but it is mostly a ruckus of objecting coaches rather than a complicated situation to rule on.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree you can get away with this, but how do you rationalize the rule book wording that says that BOO is an appeal that must be brought by the defense? How is "filling in" the appeal to cover all appealable BOO violations different from ruling on all missed bases on a play when one is appealed?

I realize the fustercluck can happen, but it is mostly a ruckus of objecting coaches rather than a complicated situation to rule on.

Preventive umpiring.

Have you ever had a batter step in the box that doesn't look familiar and hear someone say "new batter"? I have always been instructed at any clinic or school where this is raised to simply ask the batter, "are you a sub?"

Preventive umpiring.

The defense did bring a BOO situation to your attention, just that it was late. There is no penalty in this case. If the coach new his/her rules, they wouldn't have come out while the wrong batter was still at the plate.

Preventive umpiring.

When I have a BOO, I bring out my line-up card and walk through the entire scenario with both coaches simultaneously so there is no question. This would have revealed that #6 was the wrong batter anyway.

BTW, did I mention "preventive umpiring"?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, did I mention "preventive umpiring"?

No, I missed it. Where did you mention it?

My point was not that you could not do it, or even call it preventive umpiring, my point was --- what are you preventing, (an upset coach later, assuming they even notice)

are you giving one team an advantage by helping them, (yes)

and is what you are preventing worth the advantage? (doesn't seem so to me, but that is JMO).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

are you giving one team an advantage by helping them, (yes)

What advantage? There is no penalty, so how can there be an advantage?

The defense is on the field complaining about an improper batter, so I address the coach's, COACH'S concern.

And don't give me the "but he wasn't talking about THAT player". If you see OBS and the coach screams interference, do you ignore the OBS because the coach used the wrong terminology?

I'm doing the job I've been taught to do. I'm doing the job I would expect any umpire working for me to do.

I have no problem with this.

[tcannizzo]

There is a fine line between preventative umpiring and coaching. Mike, I think you are inviting a protestable fustercluck.

[mcrowder]

Well, I feel generally better about the way I handled it then, even though Mike doesn't agree with it. I thought I was going to post that and have 100% of you guys tell me I should have simply brought #1 to the plate.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What advantage? There is no penalty, so how can there be an advantage?

You are making the appeal for the coach. If he is clueless, you are helping him out. If the light bulb has now gone on, you are taking away his opportunity for a penalty later.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And don't give me the "but he wasn't talking about THAT player". If you see OBS and the coach screams interference, do you ignore the OBS because the coach used the wrong terminology?

No, but this is not wrong terminology. I see this as more akin to a situation where three runners have crossed home, and the lead runner and the final runner both missed home. The coach instructs his defense to appeal the runner for missing home. The umpire then applies the appeal to BOTH runners.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm doing the job I've been taught to do. I'm doing the job I would expect any umpire working for me to do.

I have no problem with this.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, given your position in ASA, that you are right that this is what is taught / expected. I have never received this instruction, and, as you can read, I don't agree with it. Because ONE issue with the batting order is brought to the umpire's attention does not mean that ALL issues with the batting order have now been properly appealed. I'm relying, here, on the rule statement that BOO is an appeal that must be brought by the defense.

[CelticNHBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

How is "filling in" the appeal to cover all appealable BOO violations different from ruling on all missed bases on a play when one is appealed?

How would you respond to a coach who came to you in a situation immediately following the play (before the next pitch) and said to you, "Blue, #17 just batted, but I have #19 on my lineup?"

This coach has not appealed anything to you. You will review the lineup, and may discover BOO, unreported sub, or an inaccurate lineup card. Would you acknowledge the coach with, "That is correct coach" and await a specific appeal, or would you determine the violation and assess the appropriate penalty? If the latter, wouldn't that be considered "filling in" (as you put it) the appeal to cover all appealable violations?

I agree with Mike in the sense that this coach has recognized something is wrong with the order in which players have/are batting and, just because s/he did not ask the specific question regarding the exact player, they have made the determination that something is wrong, and I would correct it, at that time.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue

How would you respond to a coach who came to you in a situation immediately following the play (before the next pitch) and said to you, "Blue, #17 just batted, but I have #19 on my lineup?"

This coach has not appealed anything to you. You will review the lineup, and may discover BOO, unreported sub, or an inaccurate lineup card. Would you acknowledge the coach with, "That is correct coach" and await a specific appeal, or would you determine the violation and assess the appropriate penalty? If the latter, wouldn't that be considered "filling in" (as you put it) the appeal to cover all appealable violations?

I agree with Mike in the sense that this coach has recognized something is wrong with the order in which players have/are batting and, just because s/he did not ask the specific question regarding the exact player, they have made the determination that something is wrong, and I would correct it, at that time.

Again, that is a "use the proper words" example rather than "appeal the proper thing" example. Add the following to your example.

Batting order is
#19
#21
#17
#22

#17 has just batted instead of #19. #21 has come up to bat and has taken one pitch. Coach does exactly what you said.

Coach has recognized that #17 batted in the wrong spot. Coach has not recognized that #17 is now legal and so #21 is also batting in the wrong spot.

You explain that since a pitch has been thrown, #17's at bat is legal.

Does coach then understand that #22 should now be due up and not #21? Am I supposed to explain that to him? Am I supposed to just correct it without an appeal?

Do we allow a generic "the batting order is screwed up - please fix it, Blue" as an appeal?

I guess so, but I never knew that.