Playing beyond third out
 

Any ruleset

Let's say you have a very long inning. You know, "one of those." The team at bat is dropping them into the outfield for base hit after base hit. Slowly, the defense gets an out, then another, then another.

But this drags on so long that after the third actual out is made, the umpires don't realize there are three outs. Two more batters come up to bat before the defense realizes, "hey wait... There are 3 outs."

What do you do?

My guess would be revert back by using the official book and accept your punishment.

Paul

I'd be with you on this one. That'd be the common sense approach to it, but I just have this nagging feeling there's something I'm missing... :D

Me too. Except the punishment part :o

Paul

Fire the umpires and have both teams go to their respective dugouts and stay there until at least 4 members of each team re sober....

Speaking ASA

That half of an inning is over when the third out is recorded. Any subsequent action is irrelevant. (Rule 1-Inning). No runs can score after the 3rd out of a half-inning (5.5.B).

Ignore everything which happened after the 3rd out was executed. The batter due up at the beginning of that teams next at bat would be the first extraneous batter in the previous inning.

Enjoy the practice AB's you had. Inning was over when it was over. The rest was just for fun and never really happened.

Mike, I think you have provided the evidence and rule basis to justify the correct decision and would be supported by interpretation (per ASA rules). Furthermore, I agree with you and would rule accordingly.

However, I would like to point to a very similar instance and how it was ruled earlier this year. It goes like this:
Team A (visiting team) is winning 4-3 in the bottom of the 7th, 1 out. B2 is at bat for Team B (home team) with a runner on second. B2 hit a ball out of the park for the game winning home run. All runners legally touch all the bases, Team B wins. 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. An assistant coach from team A approaches the umpires and questions if B2 had been re-entered (B2 is the teams DP, was removed earlier in the game while on the bases). PU looks at his line up card to see that B2 was not re-entered into the game. The umpires walk back to the field, declare B2 out, place the runner back to second, and ask B3 to bat with two outs. As luck would have it, the runner scores, the game continues to extra innings, where team A wins in 9.

What do you have? Does team B retain the victory because team A's appeal is not allowed by rule (this code does have the "umpires leaving the field" language)? Does team A win because the game was restated and the had more runs after a complete inning?

Do you see the second scenario as being equal to the first?

I don't see these as equivalent at all. For many reasons. Really, not even similar. The first involved inadvertently continuing to play after a legitimate 3rd out. The one you posted, well, doesn't. At all.

In your sitch, the appeal never happened, and the umpires should never have gone back. Head Coach needed to appeal this while umpires were still on the field. I'm not sure I follow why B2 was called out anyway - probably a misunderstanding of what you wrote on my part though. But even if B2 should have been out, there are rules for appealing this - and those rules were not followed. (Not to mention that AC doesn't have the authority to do this anyway - assuming HC is still in the game).

One happened at the end of an inning, the other at the end of a game, both allowed play to happen that was not suppose to happen.

The answer isn't about what is suppose to happen. Yes, the umpires should have denied the appeal and kept on walking. Then again, the OP, the umpires should not have allowed a team to bat with 3 outs. That's not my question, my question is "what's next?" In my scenario, they did play. What do you rule? Do you forget about play that happened after the "end" of the game or does the game have a new ending?

The difference is that your situation requires a proper protest to fix whereas the OP can still be fixed by a ruling on the field once the error is discovered.

Of course the next question (most likely from the team that is behind) is:

What about the time limit?

Ah... my bad - I see the similarity here, and get where you were going now. Sorry. Yes, retroactively B should be the winner of this game. It was over before anyone returned to play the rest.

Since there are really no OFFICIAL time limit rules, I would hope (but not expect) this was addressed in local rules. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case with local rules - they don't address everything and umpire has to make it up on the fly.

I think I, as UIC, would have no trouble backing up whatever PU decided in this case regarding time limit... so long as the question came up RIGHT THEN, and not at the end of the game. Kind of like injuries in a time-limit game... it's kind of up to us as to whether we should add time to the clock, and if we're going to, we should do it RIGHT THEN and make sure everyone knows it.

Rule 5 sec 10? (ASA)

Sigh. Does 5.10 answer your question?

not in terms of the OP and my question (although your explanation as what you would do as a UIC makes sense)

Please cite the rule that you can "fix" this. Mike cited the definitions for what constitutes and inning and what can't happen after an inning is over. But, the umpire misapplied a playing rule (grounds for protest), and doesn't all play stand up to the protest?

In the game ending case, the official ruling was Team A is the victor, as Team B could have filed a protest when the game was restarted. There is no protection for the coach in this case, you had your opportunity to inform the umpires of the misapplied rule (well two in my case, game ending and when to accept an appeal).

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Sounds kinda familiar. I was at a place, just this year, the day after such an event. Made for some interesting discussions.

And it wasn't like you brought it up in a different thread :rolleyes:

Moi?
Yeah, saw & heard about some strange/dumb happenings this year.

Yeah, remember:
In the play I describe, protest AFTER the game held no weight. There is a particular point in time in which to protest.

I wasn't specific, but this is where I was going when I said the rules don't cover it. Sorry if I was abrupt - it's been a day.

I disagree - the game was OVER, and if B protested that it was over and they were forced to play anyway, I would think B would win that protest. The game had ended - A's assistant coach talking the umpires to come out and preside over practice was irrelevant.

You can disagree, however the rule interpreter for the organization that played that game ruled Team A the winner. Team B could have filed a protest at the proper time and did not. There is no "safety clause" in the rule book; you cannot be protected from your own inaction. There is a time and place to make known the rules aren't being followed. One mistake on the umpires (allowing the appeal after they leave the confines of the field) is not negated.

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.

Speaking ASA

The game officially ended when no protest was made prior to the umpires leaving the field of play based on rule 4.6.C.3.c and probably b. This is assuming the umpires did not sprint from the field as the BR touched the plate. In championship play, the asst. coach would have possibly gained some sympathy, but not the game.

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? ;)

I wonder if the interpreter was aware of all of the facts, particularly the umpires' location.

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).

Well, since I said it was my opinion twice, I guess a 3rd time doesn't hurt... :)

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.

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. ;)

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.

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).

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.

How is the MLB case book relevant to a softball game? That tells me something about this rules interpreter right there.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.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... :rolleyes:

[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.


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.

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).

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.

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".

Yeah - yeah they were. Illegally and incorrectly. Except that by rule it did, when they left. Check your book. 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.



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.

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.

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! :) )

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 And rules 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.

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.

I mentioned the other day that rules and their interpretations must be consistent. This ruling or interpretation or complete fabrication is completely inane, and I think everyone knows it. Here's the main problem with the interpretation that the game being a regulation game by rule can be misapplied and this is subject to protest. Say the AC did not come to the umpires. Say the umpires were changing and talking through things and on their own they realized they messed up. They quickly redress and head to the field, only to find no one there or perhaps only one team, or even both teams with a few players missing. They then restart the game based on the same misconception they restarted YOUR game with, and no one protests (perhaps there's no one there TO protest), and either have a forfeit (double-forfeit?) - or someone's playing without their best player or pitcher or whatever.

Sans protest, per your rule inventor's interpretation of the rules, this is simply a more gross misapplication of that very same rule - but just as valid. Double-forfeit stands.

One could stretch this to ridiculous extremes to show how wrong this ruling is. Umpires return the next day and do the same thing. Double forfeit. Yes, this is ridiculous, but so is the initial ruling. How long after leaving the field is too long? 5 more minutes than the initial sitch? 15? An hour? There has to be a line SOMEWHERE. Fortunately, for the rest of the world ... there IS a line - in your rule 6.12.2.

I guess my point is ... the fact that the person making this decision has been put in a position such that her decisions become law does not make her ruling any less wrong. And yes - this ruling is wrong. It is incorrect. This is not grey area or opinion. No amount of authority makes it less wrong. Calling it interpretation does not make it less incorrect.