Playing beyond third out

[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.