Playing beyond third out

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

That half of an inning is over when the third out is recorded. Any subsequent action is irrelevant. (Rule 1-Inning). No runs can score after the 3rd out of a half-inning (5.5.B).

Ignore everything which happened after the 3rd out was executed. The batter due up at the beginning of that teams next at bat would be the first extraneous batter in the previous inning.

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?

[MD Longhorn]

I don't see these as equivalent at all. For many reasons. Really, not even similar. The first involved inadvertently continuing to play after a legitimate 3rd out. The one you posted, well, doesn't. At all.

In your sitch, the appeal never happened, and the umpires should never have gone back. Head Coach needed to appeal this while umpires were still on the field. I'm not sure I follow why B2 was called out anyway - probably a misunderstanding of what you wrote on my part though. But even if B2 should have been out, there are rules for appealing this - and those rules were not followed. (Not to mention that AC doesn't have the authority to do this anyway - assuming HC is still in the game).

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't see these as equivalent at all. For many reasons. Really, not even similar. The first involved inadvertently continuing to play after a legitimate 3rd out. The one you posted, well, doesn't. At all.

One happened at the end of an inning, the other at the end of a game, both allowed play to happen that was not suppose to happen.

In your sitch, the appeal never happened, and the umpires should never have gone back. Head Coach needed to appeal this while umpires were still on the field. I'm not sure I follow why B2 was called out anyway - probably a misunderstanding of what you wrote on my part though. But even if B2 should have been out, there are rules for appealing this - and those rules were not followed. (Not to mention that AC doesn't have the authority to do this anyway - assuming HC is still in the game).

The answer isn't about what is suppose to happen. Yes, the umpires should have denied the appeal and kept on walking. Then again, the OP, the umpires should not have allowed a team to bat with 3 outs. That's not my question, my question is "what's next?" In my scenario, they did play. What do you rule? Do you forget about play that happened after the "end" of the game or does the game have a new ending?

[celebur]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

One happened at the end of an inning, the other at the end of a game, both allowed play to happen that was not suppose to happen

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.

[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).

[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

One happened at the end of an inning, the other at the end of a game, both allowed play to happen that was not suppose to happen.
The answer isn't about what is suppose to happen. Yes, the umpires should have denied the appeal and kept on walking. Then again, the OP, the umpires should not have allowed a team to bat with 3 outs. That's not my question, my question is "what's next?" In my scenario, they did play. What do you rule? Do you forget about play that happened after the "end" of the game or does the game have a new ending?

Ah... my bad - I see the similarity here, and get where you were going now. Sorry. Yes, retroactively B should be the winner of this game. It was over before anyone returned to play the rest.

[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.

[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.