Playing beyond third out

[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...

[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...

[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.