You make the call

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Speaking ASA, there is clearly no rule to back up the OUT call, but there is a case play (or used to be - I don't have a case book beyond the '04 book... I think it is about time I ordered a new one...) 10.8-1 that supports calling a player out for "flagrant misconduct" and the play is, in fact, a batter who just hit a home run. The batter is ruled out, ejected, his run does not count, and the runner on 3rd base is returned. The case play is silent on whether the runner on 3rd had or had not already scored, but since the flagrant miscondut in the play was throwing the bat in anger, I would assume he had not scored yet.

That case play is the interpretation Mike was referring to earlier in this thread.

I do recall that caseplay, and recall a great deal of banter both here and at a clinic. The result at the clinic was that there was no rules-basis for the caseplay, and in cases where a caseplay and the rulebook contradict, we go with the rulebook. If I recall correctly here, the situation devolved quickly but the main point of those arguing FOR an out was that the ball was still live during the misconduct and ejection (I don't agree with that either, but it is a distinctive point between that one and the OP here). In this case, the runner is running out an award and the ball is dead.

In any case, an umpire ruling an out on an ejection is doing so without the backing of a rule (I guess rule 10 would be his only backing).

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I do recall that caseplay, and recall a great deal of banter both here and at a clinic. The result at the clinic was that there was no rules-basis for the caseplay, and in cases where a caseplay and the rulebook contradict, we go with the rulebook. If I recall correctly here, the situation devolved quickly but the main point of those arguing FOR an out was that the ball was still live during the misconduct and ejection (I don't agree with that either, but it is a distinctive point between that one and the OP here). In this case, the runner is running out an award and the ball is dead.

In any case, an umpire ruling an out on an ejection is doing so without the backing of a rule (I guess rule 10 would be his only backing).

The 2005/06 Case Book cites rule 10-8a, 10-1j3 and 10-1k-correct rule interpretation for flagrant misconduct. Page 108.

Rule 10 identifies guidelines for umpires and identfies general information with the caveat:

The plate umpire shall have the authority to make decisions on any situations not specifically covered in THESE rules.

And, failure of umpires to adhere to Rule 10 shall not be grounds for protest.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

The 2005/06 Case Book cites rule 10-8a, 10-1j3 and 10-1k-correct rule interpretation for flagrant misconduct. Page 108.

Rule 10 identifies guidelines for umpires and identfies general information with the caveat:

The plate umpire shall have the authority to make decisions on any situations not specifically covered in THESE rules.

And, failure of umpires to adhere to Rule 10 shall not be grounds for protest.

I've always thought that rule 10 was used too heavily by many umpires to add outs where outs are not provided for in the rules. I also think that THIS situation is clear cut enough (and frequent enough) that if the rulesmakers wanted us to call an out on a player ejected during a live ball or while an award was being run off during a dead ball, that they would have put it into the "The runner is out when..." section.

That said, I understand both the motivation and the opinions of those who feel differently.

Unlike the other 2 threads we disagreed on, which were straight-up rule disagreements ... this one, I believe, falls much further into the grey-area in which we both could easily and equally support our decisions to either call an out or not call an out in the situation posted in the OP.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I've always thought that rule 10 was used too heavily by many umpires to add outs where outs are not provided for in the rules. I also think that THIS situation is clear cut enough (and frequent enough) that if the rulesmakers wanted us to call an out on a player ejected during a live ball or while an award was being run off during a dead ball, that they would have put it into the "The runner is out when..." section.

That said, I understand both the motivation and the opinions of those who feel differently.

Unlike the other 2 threads we disagreed on, which were straight-up rule disagreements ... this one, I believe, falls much further into the grey-area in which we both could easily and equally support our decisions to either call an out or not call an out in the situation posted in the OP.

Yes. I agree with you and Dakota.