"The play"
 

Sitting around the umpire room this weekend at a tournament, this situation came up. Evidently, this play I'm about to describe actually happened in a Men's ASA National tournament several years ago in the Seattle area. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it did make for interesting discussion in the room. Anyway, here's the play:

R1 on third, R2 on first, no outs, ground ball hit to F4.

F4 fields ball and takes a step toward R2 to apply a tag. R2 stops and retreats toward first base. R1 is running to home.

BU calls, "DEAD BALL", R2 is out for backing up between the bases. Obviously an incorrect call.

The question is - how do you, as the umpire, fix this?


The way I heard the story, the coaches from both teams got together during the umpires discussion and decided what outcome they would "accept" (as if that mattered!)

I was also told that the play was sent to Merle Butler for his ruling. Before I relay what I heard, I'm interested to see what you all think.

If you see this as the umpire placing a team in jeopardy, it's the defense. 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.
Probably missing something, or it wouldn't be such a mystery/legend.

A dead ball cannot be revived. I suppose you're stuck with relying on the God rule here (no protest would be valid on this anyway ... not sure how a call to anyone would be valid). I can see several valid ways to rectify this, all of which would be only supported by the God rule.

1) R1 scores, R2 out, BR to first.
2) R1 to 3rd, R2 to 2nd, BR to first (after all, no outs had been completed at the point of the dead ball - I could argue in favor of this if I had to).
3) R1 scores, R2 and BR out (if it was obvious to the umpires that a double play was the most likely outcome)
4) probably more possibilities.

I would probably go with 1.

I would want to go with mcrowder, but I don't see how you can award home on a dead ball - maybe you can. I think I would do #1 in his answer but would be awful tempted to put R1 on 3rd, R2 out, and BR on 1st. Of course if I can award BR 1st why can't I award R1 home? See how confused I am?

Thanks for saying it more succinctly.

R1 can't score
once you kill it she has to go back to the last base touched

R2 wasn't out even though it was initially ruled by BU - should be overturned

BR awarded 1B on the Dead ball and R2 forced to 2B

Bases loaded no outs

Not true tc.

When you're resorting to the God Rule to solve something, you are simply fixing it. "Making rulings on things not covered in the book". There are situations where the ball goes dead BY RULE, and for many of those, you are correct - runners return even if only 1 step short of a base.

However, there are many others where the ball goes dead and runners are advanced (ball out of play comes immediately to mind - runner tagged out after being obstructed as well - probably many more). The mere fact that the ball is dead (without knowing the reason) does not mean runners cannot be placed in advance of their current position.

Score the run (I'm assuming R1 was halfway because the OP states R1 was running home during this fiasco), R2 is out (had no place to go), BR awarded 1B.

Play ball.

Mike - I thought that you may have heard of this play and the so-called "official" ruling from Merle.

It's not as you have posted. I will let this go on for a bit longer to give some of the others regulars a chance.

Also - if any of you Seattle area blues can confirm or deny that this actually happened, I'd love to hear about it.

Tell Merle he is out-voted by 80% of us. ;)

Using the "God rule", this version could not be overturned; not even by Merle, since it is strictly umpire judgement how to best correct the jeopardy created.

I suspect Merle may have use Mcrowder's #2, without using the "God rule". A dead ball was called, a dead ball shall stand. The only play being made at that moment was running R2 back, and that call cannot stand, as the rule was misapplied. R1 did not score, we cannot assume R1 would score. Cannot assume a later play on BR; so, bases loaded, no outs on the play.

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

Why can we not assume R1 scores?

When a dead ball is ruled due to an obstructed runner being put out, the appropriate action has been to advance any other runners that are more than halfway to the next base and return those who are not.

Is that not an equal assumption as being presently discussed?

I think not. When a dead ball happens by rule, there is a rule to address it. The cause of the dead ball is a misplay by the defense, and that has to be a consideration when figuring out how to proceed.

When a dead ball happens in error, there is no party to consider at fault. At any time, there is the possibility that the fielder will shift gears and still make a play at home; the OP simply states "R1 is running to home", and really doesn't indicate if there was time to make a play, still. Since R1 isn't forced, we don't know what kind of jump got off the base. And, the defense hasn't erred, where we might favor the offense; the error is the umpire's.

Not saying that is the definitive answer; it's my rationale.

Actually, ASA 8.6 would only cover INT in a situation like this. We all know the INT ruled here is incorrect. I can find nothing in this rule which states that if the umpire rules a dead ball, all runners must return.

I have a feeling Merle just loaded the bases.

I am certainly not a rules expert, however, I think the proper ruling would be to at least give the defence one out. In this case the runner on first was basically giving himself up, which was a smart move to avoid a double play. I think that loading the bases gives the offense a distinct advantage. They were willing to give up an out and I do not think they should be rewarded by a mis-call by an umpire. The runner on third is a HTBT situation.

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

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.

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.

The rest of the story....
 

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!:eek:

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.

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

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 :eek:

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

http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/Docu...light-zone.jpg http://www.tsn.ca/images/stories/200...eree_50942.jpg

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.

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.

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

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

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

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! :eek: 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'?" :D 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.