Umpire Error--Ruling?

[Young IN Ref]

Had this situation occur while I was working the plate. What are your thoughts?


R1, R2, R3 are on 3rd, 2nd and 1st base, respectively. B4 hits a shallow fly to F8. U2 moves to the play to make a ruling. F8 scoops for the ball and it appears as though it could be a catch. U2 moves his fist up to signal "out." R2 and R3 turn and return to 2nd and 1st base. B4 stops running, but continues to job to 1st base, does not abandon or enter the dugout. R1 tags up and scores. After 1-2 seconds, U2 realizes that F8 did not catch the ball and makes a "safe" signal to indicate that the ball was not caught. There is a 5-10 second delay. The ball is returned to F1, when F5 yells "The ball is still live." R2 and R3 start to run to 3rd and 2nd. F5 receives the ball, steps on 3rd base and then tags R2. F5 throws to F4, who catches the ball and steps on 2nd prior to R3 arriving, but does not tag R3. B4 is standing on 1st base.

Thoughts/Ruling? My two theories at play are: 1. The umpire's error caused the runners and batter-runner to stop and they should not be penalized for the umpire error. R2 and R3 should be placed on 3rd and 2nd base. 2. The runners and batter-runners need to ignore an initial signal, and contine playing, realizing that the ball was not caught. R2 and R3 are OUT on appeal at 3rd and 2nd base.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Young IN Ref

Had this situation occur while I was working the plate. What are your thoughts?


R1, R2, R3 are on 3rd, 2nd and 1st base, respectively. B4 hits a shallow fly to F8. U2 moves to the play to make a ruling. F8 scoops for the ball and it appears as though it could be a catch. U2 moves his fist up to signal "out." R2 and R3 turn and return to 2nd and 1st base. B4 stops running, but continues to job to 1st base, does not abandon or enter the dugout. R1 tags up and scores. After 1-2 seconds, U2 realizes that F8 did not catch the ball and makes a "safe" signal to indicate that the ball was not caught. There is a 5-10 second delay. The ball is returned to F1, when F5 yells "The ball is still live." R2 and R3 start to run to 3rd and 2nd. F5 receives the ball, steps on 3rd base and then tags R2. F5 throws to F4, who catches the ball and steps on 2nd prior to R3 arriving, but does not tag R3. B4 is standing on 1st base.

Thoughts/Ruling? My two theories at play are: 1. The umpire's error caused the runners and batter-runner to stop and they should not be penalized for the umpire error. R2 and R3 should be placed on 3rd and 2nd base. 2. The runners and batter-runners need to ignore an initial signal, and contine playing, realizing that the ball was not caught. R2 and R3 are OUT on appeal at 3rd and 2nd base.

It's certainly not out on appeal because there was no appeal. They would just be tagged out. However, if the reversal of an umpire decision placed the runners in jeopardy (it did) then the runners are entitled to have it made right.
________
Mauryjones

[NCASAUmp]

In ASA, the plate umpire is empowered to resolve any issues where a delay or reversal of a call by an umpire places runners in jeopardy. It sounds like this sitch qualifies.

I say put the BR on 1B, advancing all runners one base. Let the BU get chewed by the DC for the screw-up.

I'll admit I've made a similar mistake by calling a catch in the outfield a split second too early.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'll admit I've made a similar mistake by calling a catch in the outfield a split second too early.

Split second sure. But 5-10 seconds??? What on earth changed his mind like that?

He should have just stuck with his original call after that long of a delay and bit the bullet. It would have been a whole lot easier to fade the heat from that judgement call then having all the other junk happen.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Split second sure. But 5-10 seconds??? What on earth changed his mind like that?

He should have just stuck with his original call after that long of a delay and bit the bullet. It would have been a whole lot easier to fade the heat from that judgement call then having all the other junk happen.

I thought the emphasis these days was to get the call right.

Obviously, I can't speak for what went through the umpire's mind to make him/her change the call. However, if that IS the right call, then the BU should bite the bullet and get it right.

Either way, the BU's screwed. If the BU is screwed, do the right thing.

When I made a similar mistake, the DC came out to talk to me. I said, "yep, I screwed up. It wasn't a catch, and if a call is reversed, the PU (me) is empowered to correct the situation." I advanced the BR, and the forced runners advanced one base as well. It's what would have happened had I not called a catch.

The DC said, "well, I don't like it, but I appreciate your honesty. I understand you're doing what you have to do," and he walked away. I've called a number of games after that for the same coach, and he never brought it up or gave me any problems. Matter of fact, he's the same coach in this thread, and this thread came after my screwed up call.

[Young IN Ref]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Split second sure. But 5-10 seconds??? What on earth changed his mind like that?

He should have just stuck with his original call after that long of a delay and bit the bullet. It would have been a whole lot easier to fade the heat from that judgement call then having all the other junk happen.

BU reversed the call after 1-2 seconds. It was long enough of a delay that it wasn't a "split second" The 5-10 seconds was how long it took the defense to realize what that meant.

I correct my original statement "thoughts" to R2 and R3 not being out on "appeal" but rather because of a force...which I thought of as "appeal" only because of the long delay. My thought on that is similar to the Infield Fly. Even if the PU does not call an IF, the runners are expected to know the situation and requirements for IF, and may stay on their base. Sorry for the lack of casebook/rules citation, as I don't have them at my house.

Does anyone believe that the time (split second vs 1-2 seconds) between the BU changing the call matters? IE, if he immediately reversed the call, would R2 and R3, and BR be responsible for seeing that reversal?

Thanks for all the comments! Breaking it down, again, makes it seem to me that in this situation, the runners and batter-runner should have been placed at the bases they would have acheived had the original call been correct.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Young IN Ref

BU reversed the call after 1-2 seconds. It was long enough of a delay that it wasn't a "split second" The 5-10 seconds was how long it took the defense to realize what that meant.

I correct my original statement "thoughts" to R2 and R3 not being out on "appeal" but rather because of a force...which I thought of as "appeal" only because of the long delay. My thought on that is similar to the Infield Fly. Even if the PU does not call an IF, the runners are expected to know the situation and requirements for IF, and may stay on their base. Sorry for the lack of casebook/rules citation, as I don't have them at my house.

Does anyone believe that the time (split second vs 1-2 seconds) between the BU changing the call matters? IE, if he immediately reversed the call, would R2 and R3, and BR be responsible for seeing that reversal?

Thanks for all the comments! Breaking it down, again, makes it seem to me that in this situation, the runners and batter-runner should have been placed at the bases they would have acheived had the original call been correct.

There's no "hard and fast" rule regarding the timing of a reversed call. However, if the act of an umpire causes confusion among the runners and places them in jeopardy, you may invoke 10-3-C (the rule I mentioned earlier).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Young IN Ref

BU reversed the call after 1-2 seconds. It was long enough of a delay that it wasn't a "split second" The 5-10 seconds was how long it took the defense to realize what that meant.

I correct my original statement "thoughts" to R2 and R3 not being out on "appeal" but rather because of a force...which I thought of as "appeal" only because of the long delay. My thought on that is similar to the Infield Fly. Even if the PU does not call an IF, the runners are expected to know the situation and requirements for IF, and may stay on their base. Sorry for the lack of casebook/rules citation, as I don't have them at my house.

Does anyone believe that the time (split second vs 1-2 seconds) between the BU changing the call matters? IE, if he immediately reversed the call, would R2 and R3, and BR be responsible for seeing that reversal?

Thanks for all the comments! Breaking it down, again, makes it seem to me that in this situation, the runners and batter-runner should have been placed at the bases they would have acheived had the original call been correct.

An immediately reversed call, as the situation changes (looks caught, umpire makes quick call to help the runners, but now ball dribbles out), is part of the game. While the three runners may not be looking at the umpire after watching the play (if they even watched), they do have base coaches who ARE there just for that reason. And it is the coaches' responsibility to tell the runners to advance or return, not the umpire's.

As others have stated, you have to determine if the reversal put them in jeopardy. Don't overread the intent of "delay" in a one or two second interval, remember that we would have wanted the umpire to delay to begin with, to get the call right. We wouldn't teach and preach "It isn't anything until you call it!!" if a delay to get it right wasn't appropriate. In my mind, you had to be talking about the 5-10 second interval as the delay by the umpire, before that affected the ruling.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

There's no "hard and fast" rule regarding the timing of a reversed call. However, if the act of an umpire causes confusion among the runners and places them in jeopardy, you may invoke 10-3-C (the rule I mentioned earlier).

The way you worded this is too general (yes, I know the thread is talking about a reversed call, but just to clarify...).

The rule specifically deals with reversal of a call or a delayed call, not any act in general that confuses the players or places a team in jeopardy. For example, if an umpire rules a ball as fair, points properly, but verbalizes FAIR BALL and runners react as if he said FOUL BALL while the defense plays the ball as fair and gets easy outs... 10-3-C offers no help to the poor umpire (or to the offense). He did not delay the call, and he did not reverse the call. He just confused the offense. Too bad, so sad.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The way you worded this is too general (yes, I know the thread is talking about a reversed call, but just to clarify...).

The rule specifically deals with reversal of a call or a delayed call, not any act in general that confuses the players or places a team in jeopardy. For example, if an umpire rules a ball as fair, points properly, but verbalizes FAIR BALL and runners react as if he said FOUL BALL while the defense plays the ball as fair and gets easy outs... 10-3-C offers no help to the poor umpire (or to the offense). He did not delay the call, and he did not reverse the call. He just confused the offense. Too bad, so sad.

When those type of nightmare situations happen, as an umpire it's time to release the PF-10 and hope the coach lubes it first before he reems you with the whatnot.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

When those type of nightmare situations happen, as an umpire it's time to release the PF-10 and hope the coach lubes it first before he reems you with the whatnot.

Maybe a nice dinner first.

I had a guy catch a homerun ball off the netting behind the fence. Made the initial call of out, and about 3 seconds after replaying it my head had to change the call.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The way you worded this is too general (yes, I know the thread is talking about a reversed call, but just to clarify...).

The rule specifically deals with reversal of a call or a delayed call, not any act in general that confuses the players or places a team in jeopardy. For example, if an umpire rules a ball as fair, points properly, but verbalizes FAIR BALL and runners react as if he said FOUL BALL while the defense plays the ball as fair and gets easy outs... 10-3-C offers no help to the poor umpire (or to the offense). He did not delay the call, and he did not reverse the call. He just confused the offense. Too bad, so sad.

And that's why I was referencing this specific rule, as it pertains to a reversed call. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this subject. If the act of reversing a call places the runners in jeopardy, then the PU is empowered to "make it right" and correct the situation. The confusion I mentioned earlier is simply an indicator that the reversal of a call has done exactly that - place runners in jeopardy.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

...However, if the act of an umpire causes confusion among the runners and places them in jeopardy, you may invoke 10-3-C...

Here is the sentence I was commenting on. I clarified only because I have seen the the field and seen discussed on this very board invoking 10-3-C to correct any kind of muck up the umpire causes that places a player or team in jeopardy. It is a narrowly worded rule - call reversal or delayed call. If the umpire did anything else that confused or placed players in jeopardy, he has to eat it.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Here is the sentence I was commenting on. I clarified only because I have seen the the field and seen discussed on this very board invoking 10-3-C to correct any kind of muck up the umpire causes that places a player or team in jeopardy. It is a narrowly worded rule - call reversal or delayed call. If the umpire did anything else that confused or placed players in jeopardy, he has to eat it.

Ahhh... Good point. I'd forgotten that I'd phrased it that way. It should have read: "if the act of an umpire reversing or delaying a call causes...."

Thanks for clarifying this for me.