Playing beyond third out

[Big Slick]

[QUOTE=Dakota;687584]How is the MLB case book relevant to a softball game? That tells me something about this rules interpreter right there.[Quote]
Because there was a play in which the softball rules didn't directly address. Therefore, this person relied on a similar sport's interpretation as a resource.

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.

The umpires allowed it to continue, therefore they (the umpires) believed it to not be over. If they would have said "sorry coach, there is no appeal because we have left the field and the game is over" (a rule that appears in all three major codes). Seems in that case the umpires would declare the game over. But, the umpire crew believed the game to not be over, and allowed it to continue.

OK, here it is: 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...

up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. Means they were on their way into the gym, they weren't in the gym at the point on confrontation.

And I'm glad you picked up the "caginess" about not tell you the rule code, although I've dropped a lot of hints (and there is another current thread in which this individual is mentioned by name).

Again, my point is that one code will rule one way, while another code may rule differently (i.e. the use of the 3' running lane on a walk). The original discussion about playing beyond the three outs in an inning, and everyone said to forget the action and revert back. Mike provide two rule citations in support, which I agreed with and (most likely) would rule if I faced with a protest at an ASA tournament (even on game ending). I brought in an another example, that ruled differently, just to provide a different point of view. However, I am curious to here what the ASA or NFHS (oops, another hint!) office would say about both cases inning or game ending (appeal, runs ahead, etc).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Because there was a play in which the softball rules didn't directly address. Therefore, this person relied on a similar sport's interpretation as a resource.

Wow... not a typo. You say you're an umpire... surely you realize then that this is a COMPLETELY invalid place to look for anything softball related. I'd love to know exactly what isn't directly addressed. There are a few things, sure ... but I can't think of a one that IS answered or addressed in OBR. Your assertion that she went right to the OBR book, and keeps it with her, kind of lowers my expectations of her (and probably many here, if anyone but the 3 of us are still reading! )

The umpires allowed it to continue, therefore they (the umpires) believed it to not be over. If they would have said "sorry coach, there is no appeal because we have left the field and the game is over" (a rule that appears in all three major codes). Seems in that case the umpires would declare the game over. But, the umpire crew believed the game to not be over, and allowed it to continue.

Luckily we have rules to govern whether a game is over or not. The umpires mistaken belief is completely irrelevant.

up a flight of steps to enter the gym/locker room. Means they were on their way into the gym, they weren't in the gym at the point on confrontation.

Is this nit really worth picking? They were far away. Nearly changing or changing - makes no difference. They were gone and came back.

Again, my point is that one code will rule one way, while another code may rule differently (i.e. the use of the 3' running lane on a walk).

True... post the rule!!! This is a situation that should not need interpretation - when an appeal is valid and how a game ends is pretty cut and dried. But I don't have a P.. um... whatever your ruleset is Rulebook. You do.

However, I am curious to here what the ASA or NFHS (oops, another hint!) office would say about both cases inning or game ending (appeal, runs ahead, etc).

You're not really, are you? Both cases are cut and dried.

[Steve M]

This is getting amusing, especially with a few after-work thirst quenchers.

Yup, this person was mentioned in another thread, and this situation was also alluded to.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Steve M

This is getting amusing, especially with a few after-work thirst quenchers.

Yup, this person was mentioned in another thread, and this situation was also alluded to.

Burp

[IRISHMAFIA]

Then again if the ruling was that the game should have ended there can be no further action. If there was no further legal action, how could a team be expected to protest something that never officially happened to begin?

I think this whole situation, and thread, is the result of many people overthinking a real simple mistake with a very absolute solution.

[PSUchem]

While I also don't particularly agree with the final decision on the situation that Big Slick mentioned, I see the reasoning behind it. The umpires, by misapplying a playing rule, allowed the game to continue. Therefore, the game never ended. The offended coach (the home team) should have filed a protest right there for a misapplication of a playing rule. That would have made it simple. Instead, he/she did not, and therefore the game continued.

What other instance can you think of that would allow someone outside of the game (in this case, the rules interpreter) to interject on an umpire's ruling on the field without a proper protest by the coaches? None, and obviously the rules interpreter felt the same way.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

While I also don't particularly agree with the final decision on the situation that Big Slick mentioned, I see the reasoning behind it. The umpires, by misapplying a playing rule, allowed the game to continue. Therefore, the game never ended. The offended coach (the home team) should have filed a protest right there for a misapplication of a playing rule. That would have made it simple. Instead, he/she did not, and therefore the game continued.

So let's say the other team protested. What then? It goes back to the same "rules interpreter," who is extremely unlikely to say, "oh, yeah... you're right, I was completely wrong."

And yes, they were wrong. Once the umpires leave the field, that's it. No more protests or appeals.

Originally Posted by PSUchem

What other instance can you think of that would allow someone outside of the game (in this case, the rules interpreter) to interject on an umpire's ruling on the field without a proper protest by the coaches? None, and obviously the rules interpreter felt the same way.

None whatsoever. If if they tried, they'd have to find a new umpire.

Address the problem in private, away from the field. Overrulling me on the field without being prompted by a protest is, in my opinion, a complete usurpation of my authority, and I'll quit before allowing that to happen, never to call for them again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

What other instance can you think of that would allow someone outside of the game (in this case, the rules interpreter) to interject on an umpire's ruling on the field without a proper protest by the coaches? None, and obviously the rules interpreter felt the same way.

I can think of one, and only one... and it's actually quite similar to what we're talking about. (And it wasn't even the rules interpretor - it was simply the League President).

A league I was working had in their Calvinball rules that "No inning shall start with less than 5 minutes on the clock." Never mind that this is a stupid rule - it was what it was. In this particular case, this was the first week of the season, and while they bothered to get their made-up rules to the coaches, no one bothered to tell the umpires that there was ANY made-up rules, so we didn't know about this one.

Inning ends - 2 minutes to go (I know - my fault, right?). We tell HT to take the field. After 2 batters, LP wanders over and gets our attention, and tells us the rule. We ask to see it, he shows us, Game over, retroactively. No protest necessary. Why? Because the game ends when the game ends. Similar to the sitch we're talking about, really. And those 2 batters never happened.