Playing beyond third out

[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

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.

[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.