Call

[AtlUmpSteve]

It wouldn't matter if a "game" is stated in NCAA, or "ball game" in any game. The point is that no words create the end of a game or supercede the right of the defense to make an appeal while the umpires are still on the field.

You are the plate umpire when the apparent winning run crosses the plate in the bottom of the seventh. You decide to declare your "ball game" (and probably even give the nonsignal that actually means "end of quarter" in football, not end of game, which so many seem to want to do). But, the third baseman now appeals that the winning run missed third base; and she did. Are you trying to assert that the appeal will be ignored because you said "ball game"?? You better read ASA POE #1, 1.E.3.

The same applies in NCAA, even if the umpire declares the game.

[Dakota]

Professional players. They should know the game. OUT.

As to whether or not it was an assist, the assist was not in helping an injured player, but in keeping the BR from (for example) entering the dugout without having touched 1B.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It wouldn't matter if a "game" is stated in NCAA, or "ball game" in any game. The point is that no words create the end of a game or supercede the right of the defense to make an appeal while the umpires are still on the field.

You are the plate umpire when the apparent winning run crosses the plate in the bottom of the seventh. You decide to declare your "ball game" (and probably even give the nonsignal that actually means "end of quarter" in football, not end of game, which so many seem to want to do). But, the third baseman now appeals that the winning run missed third base; and she did. Are you trying to assert that the appeal will be ignored because you said "ball game"?? You better read ASA POE #1, 1.E.3.

The same applies in NCAA, even if the umpire declares the game.

Nope.. I never said that. I think you guys are reaching to make something out of this easy scenario; especially when 1/2 of what i said was cherry picked to make a moot point. Maybe think up a harder scenario if you must nit pick through the responses of this one to make this into a difficult scenario.

"Thats the ball game" is just words...YOU BETTER reread my original post and then my subsequent response as many times as you need to to see that I never said what you guys are inventing... and in fact said exactly what you guys are saying.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Well when i say it it means game over, and thats no myth and thats ASA.

Sorry, but it's not ASA. Nowhere in Rule 5 or the Umpire Manual (End of Game Procedures, page 204) is there any mention of an umpire declaring the game over with any word or phrase.

I have NO CLUE why you would think this is a myth. Or actually, no clue as to whatchu talkin bout willis.

Because there are people out there, including umpires, that honestly believe that such a declaration is like a judge striking a gavel. I've heard the arguments on both side. "but the blue never said 'ball game' so it isn't over yet", or "you said 'ball game', so the games over. They cannot appeal something after the game's over".

As to your scenario.. it wouldnt matter with the coaches appeal IMO unless you werent there. If it was just game over and you were still on the field you'd have to allow the dead ball appeal.. if it was live ball its out by INT. Pretty simple scenario actually.

Agree, but in my scenario, the BR is still active and the ball live.

Dont complicate it by pretending saying "thats the ball game" to end a game is a myth. Its just words used..of many which could be used.. and could not possibly be a myth.

But it is a myth in some sets of rules such as ASA. It has no meaning, purpose or standing in the procedures ending a game. Even in NCAA where the rule book notes the umpire should declare "GAME", the umpires must still accept appeals/protests submitted in a timely fashion as the rules may permit. For all intent, the rule book ends the game, not any word or phrase.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Sorry, but it's not ASA. Nowhere in Rule 5 or the Umpire Manual (End of Game Procedures, page 204) is there any mention of an umpire declaring the game over with any word or phrase.



Because there are people out there, including umpires, that honestly believe that such a declaration is like a judge striking a gavel. I've heard the arguments on both side. "but the blue never said 'ball game' so it isn't over yet", or "you said 'ball game', so the games over. They cannot appeal something after the game's over".



Agree, but in my scenario, the BR is still active and the ball live.



But it is a myth in some sets of rules such as ASA. It has no meaning, purpose or standing in the procedures ending a game. Even in NCAA where the rule book notes the umpire should declare "GAME", the umpires must still accept appeals/protests submitted in a timely fashion as the rules may permit. For all intent, the rule book ends the game, not any word or phrase.

I'll type this slowly. i dont want you to miss it, i've typed it several times before but you missed it.

Ok .. here goes.. slowly

"thats the ball game is just words"

its words used.. thats all.

Got it?

Im sure you just wisp away without any words and sneak off the ball field or perhaps announce

"we are presently in a dead ball period prior to my depature upon which signifies the end of the game"

but I just say "thats the ball game"

If theres an appeal while i'm there, i deal with that.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

OUt of curiosity though, which words do you believe you have been allowed to use by the immortal ASA to end a game?

Scary stuff there Wade, but I'll only address this part...

There are no words that magically end the game. PU calling "Ballgame!" may be a polite way of informing the players, coaches, fans, etc that the ballgame is in fact over. But it is not A) necessary or B) authoritative. If an umpire utters this when the ballgame is not in fact over, the game is simply not over. If an umpire fails to utter this when the game IS in fact over, the game is still over.

The game ends itself. It's really that simple. The game is over when it ends. Words by the umpire do not effect that, they only publicize it.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

YOU BETTER reread my original post and then my subsequent response as many times as you need to to see that I never said what you guys are inventing... and in fact said exactly what you guys are saying.

Then what did you mean by, "When I say it ("ballgame!") it means the game is over"?

[mcrowder]

So Mike, is there a trick here, or are we headed to the next inning?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Then what did you mean by, "When I say it ("ballgame!") it means the game is over"?

Nope, you didnt read far enough into my response. You cherry picked one sentence. try again

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Nope, you didnt read far enough into my response. You cherry picked one sentence. try again

Try what again? You seem to think I'm trying to prove a point or win an argument, or am in some way out to get you.

Instead, I'm asking you a question. What did you mean by that? Obviously (to me), that's where I began to misunderstand your point.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

So Mike, is there a trick here, or are we headed to the next inning?

This scenario occured on the 7/15 game between Philadelphia and New England. Stephanie VanBrackle of Philadelphia team (sp?) was the BR. The described the events as offered to me by the PU. The out was called and the game moved to the next inning. Philadelphia won the game in the 11th.

The Philly coach argued the point with the standard, "we are trying to get people in the seats" and the "this isn't the type of call" yada, yada, yada.

PU told the coach that neither the umpires or coaches get to chose which rules they enforce and when. From what I understand, the chief of the crew filed his report on the spot and the team owner was not happy....with the team! No problem with the umpiring.

[Mountaineer]

So tell us Mike, oh great guru of The Official Forum, do you concur with the ruling on the field??

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The Philly coach argued the point with the standard, "we are trying to get people in the seats" and the "this isn't the type of call" yada, yada, yada.

Once you revealed this was professional ball, I was wondering about something like this.

It is certainly not a call that "sells" the game - to the casual fan, it would appear to be a bit arcane or technical, and it takes away the "obvious win."

MLB used to have a tradition to ignore this kind of situation, until it was actually called in a fairly important game - maybe even a world series??? I don't remember the details... even though I think they were posted here or one of the other umpire boards fairly recently.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

So tell us Mike, oh great guru of The Official Forum, do you concur with the ruling on the field??

As anal as I can be, what do you think? It was the call prescribed by the rules. The umpire did what the league pays her to do. As I said, it may have very well been overlooked had the defensive coach not raised the issue.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Bob - only the BR is actually awarded a base. The forced runners are allowed to "advance without liability to be put out", but are not AWARDED their next base.

Semantics. If a runner is allowed to "advance without liability to be put out", isn't that an 'award'?

Bob