Playing beyond third out

[Big Slick]

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?

Again, your opinion. The interpreter was very knowledgeable of all details. The rationalization (as I have stated before) was: the umpires misapplied a playing rule - by honoring the appeal. Yes, that is a rule (no appeals once the umpires leave the field). The offending coach has the opportunity to make the protest on the misapplication (that would have been upheld) but did not. Yes, that is a misapplication of the playing rules; this was the rationalization.

Again, you don't have to agree, and tournament UIC's, organization UIC's/rule writers might give a different interpretation. Not uncommon between rule codes (to answer an earlier question, this rule code does not have three or five letters).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Again, your opinion...

Well, since I said it was my opinion twice, I guess a 3rd time doesn't hurt...

[MD Longhorn]

I strongly invite the leader of your rules code to visit this board and defend this ruling. It does not have any basis in the rules of any alphabet soup I've worked for - in any sport.

Like Dakota said, the umpires had no authority to restart this game. Basically they presided over a semi-official looking scrimmage. There is no need to protest this.

I'm kind of wondering why the visiting team was still hear after the umpires had time to cross a street, climb a hill, and start changing. What would these deluded umpires have done had they been talked into restarting the game only to find the visitors were gone. Declare a forfeit? Would the rules interpreter from on high have backed up that forfeit? Honestly, I can't see ANY of this happening and being backed up by anyone with real rules knowledge.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...Honestly, I can't see ANY of this ...being backed up by anyone with real rules knowledge.

Well, that's a bit strong. I do understand the logic of the official ruling, but it is all based on the idea that the umpires misapplied a rule regarding appeals. That is fundamentally where the rules interpreter erred, IMO. The game was over, and the umpire's decision to listen to the appeal carried no more weight than any other general re-hashing of rules and rulings by umpires sitting around between games. It had no bearing on the official ending of the game. The umpires erred in trying to restart the game, but that did not make the restart official. The game remained over.

Oh, and this is JMO.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I strongly invite the leader of your rules code to visit this board and defend this ruling. It does not have any basis in the rules of any alphabet soup I've worked for - in any sport.

Funny enough, she is the authority in rulings for that rule code. Therefore, what she says is goes. The underlying issue was "incorrect application of appeal/game ending procedure." Other rule codes may take the stance that "game ends when the umpires leave the field, even if they go back on." That's fine, it isn't like the "big three" different on particular plays (I can think of two just off the top of my head). There are arguments on both sides, therefore it is a matter of interpretation.

I don't know you, but I had the pleasure to talk with this person very recently. It is amazing the wealth of knowledge, including all softball codes and baseball. I even asked about another play, to which this person didn't answer until the play was found in a MLB case book. That book was standard gear for this individual, even on a trip that didn't involve baseball.

Like Dakota said, the umpires had no authority to restart this game. Basically they presided over a semi-official looking scrimmage. There is no need to protest this.

Technically, they weren't "restarting." To the umpires, they were honoring an appeal for not re-entering a starter. Therefore, to the umpires the game never did end. Like I have stated before, other rule codes may consider the ending to the game as being absolute, and coaches are protected from having to make an appeal. For this rule code, the end to the game wasn't until the umpires said the game ended (after extra innings were played).

I'm kind of wondering why the visiting team was still hear after the umpires had time to cross a street, climb a hill, and start changing. What would these deluded umpires have done had they been talked into restarting the game only to find the visitors were gone. Declare a forfeit? Would the rules interpreter from on high have backed up that forfeit? Honestly, I can't see ANY of this happening and being backed up by anyone with real rules knowledge.

Please read the play again. The visitors were still there because their (assist) coach was talking to the umpires. The umpires were NOT to their locker room at this point (on their way, about 50 yards from the field - they were not changing). You might mean "what if they home team had left?" I can't answer that question, didn't happen and therefore not needed of a ruling.

BTW, this play isn't about an absolute wrong or right, and that's why this person gets paid as an interpreter. To say call this person "on high" and insinuate this individual doesn't have "real rules knowledge" is an inane statement.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

...until the play was found in a MLB case book.

How is the MLB case book relevant to a softball game? That tells me something about this rules interpreter right there.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Technically, they weren't "restarting." ...Therefore, to the umpires the game never did end....For this rule code, the end to the game wasn't until the umpires said the game ended (after extra innings were played).

Please cite the rule (you've been pretty cagey about whose rules these were, BTW) that says the game ending has anything whatsoever to do with the umpire saying the game has ended.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Please read the play again. ...The umpires were NOT to their locker room at this point (on their way, about 50 yards from the field - they were not changing).....

OK, here it is:

Originally Posted by Big Slick

...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....

Pardon me if I took that to mean they were in their changing (locker) room. But, it could be because that is what it says...

[Big Slick]

[QUOTE=Dakota;687584]How is the MLB case book relevant to a softball game? That tells me something about this rules interpreter right there.[Quote]
Because there was a play in which the softball rules didn't directly address. Therefore, this person relied on a similar sport's interpretation as a resource.

Please cite the rule (you've been pretty cagey about whose rules these were, BTW) that says the game ending has anything whatsoever to do with the umpire saying the game has ended.

The umpires allowed it to continue, therefore they (the umpires) believed it to not be over. If they would have said "sorry coach, there is no appeal because we have left the field and the game is over" (a rule that appears in all three major codes). Seems in that case the umpires would declare the game over. But, the umpire crew believed the game to not be over, and allowed it to continue.

OK, here it is: Pardon me if I took that to mean they were in their changing (locker) room. But, it could be because that is what it says...

up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. Means they were on their way into the gym, they weren't in the gym at the point on confrontation.

And I'm glad you picked up the "caginess" about not tell you the rule code, although I've dropped a lot of hints (and there is another current thread in which this individual is mentioned by name).

Again, my point is that one code will rule one way, while another code may rule differently (i.e. the use of the 3' running lane on a walk). The original discussion about playing beyond the three outs in an inning, and everyone said to forget the action and revert back. Mike provide two rule citations in support, which I agreed with and (most likely) would rule if I faced with a protest at an ASA tournament (even on game ending). I brought in an another example, that ruled differently, just to provide a different point of view. However, I am curious to here what the ASA or NFHS (oops, another hint!) office would say about both cases inning or game ending (appeal, runs ahead, etc).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Funny enough, she is the authority in rulings for that rule code. Therefore, what she says is goes. The underlying issue was "incorrect application of appeal/game ending procedure." Other rule codes may take the stance that "game ends when the umpires leave the field, even if they go back on." That's fine, it isn't like the "big three" different on particular plays (I can think of two just off the top of my head). There are arguments on both sides, therefore it is a matter of interpretation.

I know everyone makes mistakes, and I wonder if you brought this part of the argument up for discussion if she would agree that she may have erred this time.

know you, but I had the pleasure to talk with this person very recently. It is amazing the wealth of knowledge, including all softball codes and baseball. I even asked about another play, to which this person didn't answer until the play was found in a MLB case book. That book was standard gear for this individual, even on a trip that didn't involve baseball.

Oh my, you didn't just say this did you? I'm truly hoping this was a typo in some way. Otherwise ... well, I'll leave it at "oh my".

Technically, they weren't "restarting."

Yeah - yeah they were.

To the umpires, they were honoring an appeal for not re-entering a starter.

Illegally and incorrectly.

Therefore, to the umpires the game never did end.

Except that by rule it did, when they left. Check your book.

Like I have stated before, other rule codes may consider the ending to the game as being absolute, and coaches are protected from having to make an appeal. For this rule code, the end to the game wasn't until the umpires said the game ended (after extra innings were played).

I grant that I have not worked 100% of the rulebooks out there. But EVERY SINGLE ONE that I've read or worked tells you exactly when the game ends and in this case, the game was over. If this is wrong (and you keep avoiding the ruleset) - please quote the relevant rule regarding appeals at the end of a game.

Please read the play again. The visitors were still there because their (assist) coach was talking to the umpires. The umpires were NOT to their locker room at this point (on their way, about 50 yards from the field - they were not changing). You might mean "what if they home team had left?" I can't answer that question, didn't happen and therefore not needed of a ruling.

Yes, I got the teams backward... but answering this question IS relevant. It illustrates that the original ruling CANNOT be right - because if anything, the interpretation of a rule must maintain consistency across varying possibilities that still fit the rule. OBVIOUSLY, calling a forfeit (or making the other team return to finish this game later) is flat wrong ... and for the same reason that the ruling in the case you posted was wrong.

BTW, this play isn't about an absolute wrong or right, and that's why this person gets paid as an interpreter. To say call this person "on high" and insinuate this individual doesn't have "real rules knowledge" is an inane statement.

Well, you've twisted my words a bit. This IS about right and wrong - everyone is fallible, and this ruling is WRONG (again, if I'm wrong about that, the relevant rule will help shed light on that). I did not, by the way, say or insinuate that the rules interpretor for your ruleset doesn't have rules knowledge (and on high was not meant as a slam ... not at all). Read what I said again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Because there was a play in which the softball rules didn't directly address. Therefore, this person relied on a similar sport's interpretation as a resource.

Wow... not a typo. You say you're an umpire... surely you realize then that this is a COMPLETELY invalid place to look for anything softball related. I'd love to know exactly what isn't directly addressed. There are a few things, sure ... but I can't think of a one that IS answered or addressed in OBR. Your assertion that she went right to the OBR book, and keeps it with her, kind of lowers my expectations of her (and probably many here, if anyone but the 3 of us are still reading! )

The umpires allowed it to continue, therefore they (the umpires) believed it to not be over. If they would have said "sorry coach, there is no appeal because we have left the field and the game is over" (a rule that appears in all three major codes). Seems in that case the umpires would declare the game over. But, the umpire crew believed the game to not be over, and allowed it to continue.

Luckily we have rules to govern whether a game is over or not. The umpires mistaken belief is completely irrelevant.

up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. Means they were on their way into the gym, they weren't in the gym at the point on confrontation.

Is this nit really worth picking? They were far away. Nearly changing or changing - makes no difference. They were gone and came back.

Again, my point is that one code will rule one way, while another code may rule differently (i.e. the use of the 3' running lane on a walk).

True... post the rule!!! This is a situation that should not need interpretation - when an appeal is valid and how a game ends is pretty cut and dried. But I don't have a P.. um... whatever your ruleset is Rulebook. You do.

However, I am curious to here what the ASA or NFHS (oops, another hint!) office would say about both cases inning or game ending (appeal, runs ahead, etc).

You're not really, are you? Both cases are cut and dried.

[Steve M]

This is getting amusing, especially with a few after-work thirst quenchers.

Yup, this person was mentioned in another thread, and this situation was also alluded to.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Steve M

This is getting amusing, especially with a few after-work thirst quenchers.

Yup, this person was mentioned in another thread, and this situation was also alluded to.

Burp

[IRISHMAFIA]

Then again if the ruling was that the game should have ended there can be no further action. If there was no further legal action, how could a team be expected to protest something that never officially happened to begin?

I think this whole situation, and thread, is the result of many people overthinking a real simple mistake with a very absolute solution.

[PSUchem]

While I also don't particularly agree with the final decision on the situation that Big Slick mentioned, I see the reasoning behind it. The umpires, by misapplying a playing rule, allowed the game to continue. Therefore, the game never ended. The offended coach (the home team) should have filed a protest right there for a misapplication of a playing rule. That would have made it simple. Instead, he/she did not, and therefore the game continued.

What other instance can you think of that would allow someone outside of the game (in this case, the rules interpreter) to interject on an umpire's ruling on the field without a proper protest by the coaches? None, and obviously the rules interpreter felt the same way.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

While I also don't particularly agree with the final decision on the situation that Big Slick mentioned, I see the reasoning behind it. The umpires, by misapplying a playing rule, allowed the game to continue. Therefore, the game never ended. The offended coach (the home team) should have filed a protest right there for a misapplication of a playing rule. That would have made it simple. Instead, he/she did not, and therefore the game continued.

So let's say the other team protested. What then? It goes back to the same "rules interpreter," who is extremely unlikely to say, "oh, yeah... you're right, I was completely wrong."

And yes, they were wrong. Once the umpires leave the field, that's it. No more protests or appeals.

Originally Posted by PSUchem

What other instance can you think of that would allow someone outside of the game (in this case, the rules interpreter) to interject on an umpire's ruling on the field without a proper protest by the coaches? None, and obviously the rules interpreter felt the same way.

None whatsoever. If if they tried, they'd have to find a new umpire.

Address the problem in private, away from the field. Overrulling me on the field without being prompted by a protest is, in my opinion, a complete usurpation of my authority, and I'll quit before allowing that to happen, never to call for them again.

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

So let's say the other team protested. What then? It goes back to the same "rules interpreter," who is extremely unlikely to say, "oh, yeah... you're right, I was completely wrong."

And yes, they were wrong. Once the umpires leave the field, that's it. No more protests or appeals.

Not sure what you mean by "going back to the same rules interpreter" and her saying that she was wrong. She would have never made the first ruling in the first place. I'm talking about a protest of a misapplication of the playing rule. If that had been done, the rules interpreter would have been able to rule on that subject, and the actual outcome might never have taken place.