"The play"

[wadeintothem]

When you blow a DB call like this, I dont think there necessarily is a "correct" answer.. and as a matter of a fact an answer that both coaches can live with might be the best of all.. so one umps guess is as good as the next and the one that gets your game moving without an ejection is probably the best of all.. just my .02

[Dakota]

Please clarify what "god" rule you are using...

Usually I think of 10-1 as the "god" rule. But 10-6-C seems to fit better.

If the rule you are referring to is 10-6-C (reversed call putting offense or defense in jeopardy), then the umpire must "put things right" within his judgment.

Since it is an umpire call reversal, the PU's judgment is what counts. Using the OBS rule as the model here, since the underlying assumptions seem to fit - by that I mean the umpire must reconstruct the outcome of the play that would have occurred, in his judgment, had the dead ball not been called, then ... Mike's answer seems right. It seems clear the defense would have recorded one out, and it seems clear that R1 would have scored and BR would have reached 1B while they were chasing down R2. R2 out. R1 scores. BR on 1B. Play ball.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

... snip ... Personally, I like Mike's (both IM and Mcrowder's #1) answer better; just betting on Merle's answer.

With R2 running backward and BR headed for 1st, they had a pretty sure out, maybe two. With no outs and F4 chasing R2, you probably had to judge that R1 would score, assuming F4 made no play on R1.

[Andy]

Here is how I heard the conclusion of this situation.

The umpires on the field decided that it was F4's intention to tag R2 and throw to first for a double play on the BR. F4 was willing to let the run score to get the double play. This is also the decision that the two coaches had agreed to accept. Game resumed with the run scored, bases empty, and two outs.

After the game, the tournament UIC, who saw the whole play, sent a description to Merle and asked for a ruling. The ruling that came back from the office was to use the "God" rule - 10.1 and........







DO IT OVER!

R1 back to third, R2 back to first, BR back to bat with the count the same as it was when the ball was hit.

I was very skeptical of this answer when I heard it, but the umpire relaying the story was insistant that this was correct. I would really like to verify this from another source.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Andy

After the game, the tournament UIC, who saw the whole play, sent a description to Merle and asked for a ruling. The ruling that came back from the office was to use the "God" rule - 10.1 and........

DO IT OVER!

R1 back to third, R2 back to first, BR back to bat with the count the same as it was when the ball was hit.

Well, of all the options discussed so far, that is without a doubt my least favorite.

[mcrowder]

I can think of NO situation for which the proper fix would be a Do Over.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I can think of NO situation for which the proper fix would be a Do Over.

I can think of one that used to be in the ASA rule book

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I can think of NO situation for which the proper fix would be a Do Over.

I can
If your're in the Twilight Zone using NFL refs who somehow see offsetting penalties.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I can think of NO situation for which the proper fix would be a Do Over.

The fielder using an illegal glove (used to include using a mitt when not play F2 or F3) results in the option of a do-over.

I cannot believe that was the official ruling; I have heard both Merle and Henry state many times that a do-over is not appropriate for anything other than the illegal glove/mitt. Someone is in error, I believe.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Andy

Here is how I heard the conclusion of this situation.

The umpires on the field decided that it was F4's intention to tag R2 and throw to first for a double play on the BR. F4 was willing to let the run score to get the double play. This is also the decision that the two coaches had agreed to accept. Game resumed with the run scored, bases empty, and two outs.

After the game, the tournament UIC, who saw the whole play, sent a description to Merle and asked for a ruling. The ruling that came back from the office was to use the "God" rule - 10.1 and........







DO IT OVER!

R1 back to third, R2 back to first, BR back to bat with the count the same as it was when the ball was hit.

I was very skeptical of this answer when I heard it, but the umpire relaying the story was insistant that this was correct. I would really like to verify this from another source.

LOL

OK I would like to clarify my position.. while I dont believe there is a necessarily "correct answer".. there are definately incorrect answers, with 'do over' being top of the list.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The fielder using an illegal glove (used to include using a mitt when not play F2 or F3) results in the option of a do-over.

I cannot believe that was the official ruling; I have heard both Merle and Henry state many times that a do-over is not appropriate for anything other than the illegal glove/mitt. Someone is in error, I believe.

Let's not forget option "b" of an unreported sub making a play on defense

[ChampaignBlue]

Ah, but those aren't options exercised by the umpire.

Umps may get done over but don't get do-overs.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I can think of NO situation for which the proper fix would be a Do Over.

A VERY veteran umpire on my HS and College board got away with it once. Here's the sitch:

College game - R1 on 2nd, no outs, 3-2 count on the batter. Runner off with the pitch, batter hits a screamer right at the shortstop who is blasted by the runner. My buddy kills the play for the obvious interference - only to see the pitcher turn around with the ball in her glove! Evidently, she made a helluva play! He asked his partner "how are we gonna get out of this?" to which his partner said, "what do you mean 'WE'?" He got both coaches together and said "here's what we are gonna do - runner back on 2nd, batter back in the box 3-2 count" - they both said "OK Jack, if you say so." I don't know of anyone else that could have pulled it off.