Playing beyond third out

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

Rule 5 sec 10? (ASA)

Sigh. Does 5.10 answer your question?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sigh. Does 5.10 answer your question?

not in terms of the OP and my question (although your explanation as what you would do as a UIC makes sense)

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by celebur

The difference is that your situation requires a proper protest to fix whereas the OP can still be fixed by a ruling on the field once the error is discovered.

Please cite the rule that you can "fix" this. Mike cited the definitions for what constitutes and inning and what can't happen after an inning is over. But, the umpire misapplied a playing rule (grounds for protest), and doesn't all play stand up to the protest?

In the game ending case, the official ruling was Team A is the victor, as Team B could have filed a protest when the game was restarted. There is no protection for the coach in this case, you had your opportunity to inform the umpires of the misapplied rule (well two in my case, game ending and when to accept an appeal).

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Mike, I think you have provided the evidence and rule basis to justify the correct decision and would be supported by interpretation (per ASA rules). Furthermore, I agree with you and would rule accordingly.

However, I would like to point to a very similar instance and how it was ruled earlier this year. It goes like this:
Team A (visiting team) is winning 4-3 in the bottom of the 7th, 1 out. B2 is at bat for Team B (home team) with a runner on second. B2 hit a ball out of the park for the game winning home run. All runners legally touch all the bases, Team B wins. Both umpires leave the field, walk up a slight hill, cross a road, and up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. An assistant coach from team A approaches the umpires and questions if B2 had been re-entered (B2 is the teams DP, was removed earlier in the game while on the bases). PU looks at his line up card to see that B2 was not re-entered into the game. The umpires walk back to the field, declare B2 out, place the runner back to second, and ask B3 to bat with two outs. As luck would have it, the runner scores, the game continues to extra innings, where team A wins in 9.

What do you have? Does team B retain the victory because team A's appeal is not allowed by rule (this code does have the "umpires leaving the field" language)? Does team A win because the game was restated and the had more runs after a complete inning?

Do you see the second scenario as being equal to the first?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sounds kinda familiar. I was at a place, just this year, the day after such an event. Made for some interesting discussions.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sounds kinda familiar. I was at a place, just this year, the day after such an event. Made for some interesting discussions.

And it wasn't like you brought it up in a different thread

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

And it wasn't like you brought it up in a different thread

Moi?
Yeah, saw & heard about some strange/dumb happenings this year.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Moi?
Yeah, saw & heard about some strange/dumb happenings this year.

Yeah, remember:

Originally Posted by Steve M

Based on what the ruling was from a different sanctioning body for a game earlier this year - where the umpires resumed play after a game-ending condition, I'd suggest that the "losing" team protest through the league administration and even to the sanctioning body.

In the play I describe, protest AFTER the game held no weight. There is a particular point in time in which to protest.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

not in terms of the OP and my question (although your explanation as what you would do as a UIC makes sense)

I wasn't specific, but this is where I was going when I said the rules don't cover it. Sorry if I was abrupt - it's been a day.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Please cite the rule that you can "fix" this. Mike cited the definitions for what constitutes and inning and what can't happen after an inning is over. But, the umpire misapplied a playing rule (grounds for protest), and doesn't all play stand up to the protest?

In the game ending case, the official ruling was Team A is the victor, as Team B could have filed a protest when the game was restarted. There is no protection for the coach in this case, you had your opportunity to inform the umpires of the misapplied rule (well two in my case, game ending and when to accept an appeal).

I disagree - the game was OVER, and if B protested that it was over and they were forced to play anyway, I would think B would win that protest. The game had ended - A's assistant coach talking the umpires to come out and preside over practice was irrelevant.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I disagree - the game was OVER, and if B protested that it was over and they were forced to play anyway, I would think B would win that protest. The game had ended - A's assistant coach talking the umpires to come out and preside over practice was irrelevant.

You can disagree, however the rule interpreter for the organization that played that game ruled Team A the winner. Team B could have filed a protest at the proper time and did not. There is no "safety clause" in the rule book; you cannot be protected from your own inaction. There is a time and place to make known the rules aren't being followed. One mistake on the umpires (allowing the appeal after they leave the confines of the field) is not negated.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

You can disagree, however the rule interpreter for the organization that played that game ruled Team A the winner. Team B could have filed a protest at the proper time and did not. There is no "safety clause" in the rule book; you cannot be protected from your own inaction. There is a time and place to make known the rules aren't being followed. One mistake on the umpires (allowing the appeal after they leave the confines of the field) is not negated.

I don't buy that, not at all. I believe your interpreter was wrong, and suspect that if you take it higher, you'd find they were wrong. A game that is over is OVER. The fact that the umpires made a mistake AFTER it was over is completely irrelevant. No protest needed (and even if you had one, there's no protest either ... that too was after the game was over - and is also completely irrelevant.) The coach is not required to take ANY action after the game is over, and none he takes (and none the umpires take, nor the AC of the home team) happened - it was all recreational and not part of the game, even though they didn't realize it at the time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Team A (visiting team) is winning 4-3 in the bottom of the 7th, 1 out. B2 is at bat for Team B (home team) with a runner on second. B2 hit a ball out of the park for the game winning home run. All runners legally touch all the bases, Team B wins. Both umpires leave the field, walk up a slight hill, cross a road, and up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. An assistant coach from team A approaches the umpires and questions if B2 had been re-entered (B2 is the teams DP, was removed earlier in the game while on the bases). PU looks at his line up card to see that B2 was not re-entered into the game. The umpires walk back to the field, declare B2 out, place the runner back to second, and ask B3 to bat with two outs. As luck would have it, the runner scores, the game continues to extra innings, where team A wins in 9.

What do you have? Does team B retain the victory because team A's appeal is not allowed by rule (this code does have the "umpires leaving the field" language)? Does team A win because the game was restated and the had more runs after a complete inning?

Speaking ASA

The game officially ended when no protest was made prior to the umpires leaving the field of play based on rule 4.6.C.3.c and probably b. This is assuming the umpires did not sprint from the field as the BR touched the plate. In championship play, the asst. coach would have possibly gained some sympathy, but not the game.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't buy that, not at all. I believe your interpreter was wrong, and suspect that if you take it higher, you'd find they were wrong. A game that is over is OVER. The fact that the umpires made a mistake AFTER it was over is completely irrelevant. No protest needed (and even if you had one, there's no protest either ... that too was after the game was over - and is also completely irrelevant.) The coach is not required to take ANY action after the game is over, and none he takes (and none the umpires take, nor the AC of the home team) happened - it was all recreational and not part of the game, even though they didn't realize it at the time.

Again, you can disagree, but the ruling came from the HIGHEST authority for that rule code. Therefore it wasn't my interpreter, it was THE interpreter.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Again, you can disagree, but the ruling came from the HIGHEST authority for that rule code. Therefore it wasn't my interpreter, it was THE interpreter.

Which rule code was this?

I don't understand how this official interpretation could be rationalized. The game was over, the umpires had left the field and were in their changing room. This wasn't a matter of the umpires being slightly outside the fence... they were some distance away and in their changing room. The umpires had no further authority to hear an appeal or to restart the game. They might THINK they had that authority, but they did not. Neither did the rules interpreter (IMO). The supposed misapplied rule (when to hear an appeal) could not have been misapplied because the game was over. Done. Finished. There was no game going on in which they could misapply a rule.

I suppose my opinion is clear?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which rule code was this?

I don't understand how this official interpretation could be rationalized. The game was over, the umpires had left the field and were in their changing room. This wasn't a matter of the umpires being slightly outside the fence... they were some distance away and in their changing room. The umpires had no further authority to hear an appeal or to restart the game. They might THINK they had that authority, but they did not. Neither did the rules interpreter (IMO). The supposed misapplied rule (when to hear an appeal) could not have been misapplied because the game was over. Done. Finished. There was no game going on in which they could misapply a rule.

I suppose my opinion is clear?

I wonder if the interpreter was aware of all of the facts, particularly the umpires' location.