Playing beyond third out

[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.

[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.

[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...