Playing beyond third out

[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.

[PSUchem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

Not sure what you mean by "going back to the same rules interpreter" and her saying that she was wrong. She would have never made the first ruling in the first place. I'm talking about a protest of a misapplication of the playing rule. If that had been done, the rules interpreter would have been able to rule on that subject, and the actual outcome might never have taken place.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

Not sure what you mean by "going back to the same rules interpreter" and her saying that she was wrong. She would have never made the first ruling in the first place. I'm talking about a protest of a misapplication of the playing rule. If that had been done, the rules interpreter would have been able to rule on that subject, and the actual outcome might never have taken place.

My understanding of Big Slick's sitch and your response was that the umpires were told by the rule interpreter to continue the game. If the other team had filed a protest that the game should not have been continued, who would the protest have gone to? Someone else? Sounded to me like it would go back to the same rule interpreter who told the umpires to resume the game.

[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.