Playing beyond third out

[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 NCASAUmp

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.

That's not how I read it. I think the umpires were talking into returning by the visitor's AC. I think the rule inventor was brought in later - not sure if she was just called with a question, or if it was in response to a complaint. That part wasn't clear, but I do believe it was later.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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.

No, the rule interpreter did not get involved until the situation was presented to her a day or two after.

Simply stated:
The umpires, after leaving the field, honored the appeal. This was a misapplication of rule

6.12.2 It is a regulation game when the umpire terminates play by calling, “Game.” If a team wishes to lodge an appeal or protest on the final play of the game, it must immediately inform the plate umpire of that intent.

And rules

7.1.1.4 Participation by an improper player: batting out of order, player who is listed inaccurately on the lineup card, unreported player and illegal player. (See Rule 8.3 and Appendix B.)
7.1.1.4.1 Must be a dead-ball appeal. 7.1.1.4.2 Must be made before the umpires leave the field of play.

This situation was brought to the attention of the rule interpreter by the head of the umpiring group, as this game could have influenced conference standing and championship seeding. Like everyone else, we (the umpire's group) expected the home team to be awarded the victory . . after all, the game ended (6.2 Game Winner - The winner of the game shall be the team that scores more runs in a regulation game. 6.12.1 A regulation game shall be seven innings). However, we noticed that the conference standing were never changed to indicate a victory by the home team.

A few weeks later, while in conversation with the term expiring rules interpreter, I made the comment: "I know you were asked a lot of strange things this year, but was there any stranger than what happened at (location)?" Other umpires then inquired what happened, the story was told. That's when she gave your interpretation that 1) this was a misapplication of a playing rule(s), 2) home team had a right to protest and did not. I was shocked, because I believed in the absolute nature of 6.2/6.12.1. Therefore, I asked if a coach is protected by these rules. Well, I guess you know how this ends. And if the home coach protest before the "resumption", yes, that protest would have been upheld.

As I said before, all rule codes have these set of rules about a regulation game and appeal procedure at the end of a game. They are all the same. And Irish made a great statement, about this rule being absolute. However, if these rules are absolute or not absolute is a matter of interpretation for a particular rule code. Sometimes you have to allow the authority of a rule code exercise that authority. That doesn't make anyone wrong or right, it allows rule codes to govern by their own spirit and philosophy.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

However, if these rules are absolute or not absolute is a matter of interpretation for a particular rule code. Sometimes you have to allow the authority of a rule code exercise that authority. That doesn't make anyone wrong or right, it allows rule codes to govern by their own spirit and philosophy.

Or, she was wrong, but still had the authority to be wrong.

There are, in my opinion, several rule interpretations in every rule set that absolutely contradict the written rules. But, until a new broom sweeps the floor, that is the interpretation we must use.

Examples; 1) This ruling in the 4 letter sanction with the term-expiring authority. 2) The ruling of this same body that a pitch delivered behind the back is "forward and past the straight line of the body". 3) The NFHS ruling that throwing the ball to 1st on a walk before the BR reaches the base can be a "play" that can be interference. 4) ASA ruling that a glove with a logo or writing that is a different color than the body of the glove is multicolored.

Oh well. None is supported by rule; but we must support them.

[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.