Fri Jul 30, 2010, 02:06pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
|
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”
West Houston Mike
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
