Ball 4 missed

[NCASAUmp]

A few months ago, we had a similar situation in which the umpires missed an out and continued the inning past 3 outs (caught a few batters later by the defense). The general consensus here was that once the third out was made, the third out was made, and the inning was over. Everything else was batting practice.

Is that consistent with the explanation given regarding 10.3.C?

[MD Longhorn]

AtlSteve - I'm not sure you can really justify a BOO here, much less extending it to an extra out. If we're ignoring the fact that the umpires failed to note the count ... then play this situation out as if the umpires did NOT fail to note it, but simply did what they were supposed to, meaning not pointing to first base. We have a batter awarded first base by rule, when ball four crosses the plate. We then have a catcher throwing the ball to another fielder (F1), and a batter who has not yet reached first base. Next we have F1 throwing the ball back to F2 - and then our BR hits it with his bat.

We have an out for intentional interference with a throw when the batter-runner strikes the thrown ball intentionally.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

AtlSteve - I'm not sure you can really justify a BOO here, much less extending it to an extra out. If we're ignoring the fact that the umpires failed to note the count ... then play this situation out as if the umpires did NOT fail to note it, but simply did what they were supposed to, meaning not pointing to first base. We have a batter awarded first base by rule, when ball four crosses the plate. We then have a catcher throwing the ball to another fielder (F1), and a batter who has not yet reached first base. Next we have F1 throwing the ball back to F2 - and then our BR hits it with his bat.

We have an out for intentional interference with a throw when the batter-runner strikes the thrown ball intentionally.

Not bad; but it has an obvious flaw. Since B2 is awarded 1st by rule, and is not in jeopardy as a batter-runner, what "play" has been interfered with?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not bad; but it has an obvious flaw. Since B2 is awarded 1st by rule, and is not in jeopardy as a batter-runner, what "play" has been interfered with?

Interesting ... there IS a runner on 2nd. Not really a play though - but you can't let BR, having been walked, club the ball into the outfield, can you?

Honestly, this might be one of those Rule 10 situations where you put the BR on first from the walk and move on.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

AtlSteve - I'm not sure you can really justify a BOO here, much less extending it to an extra out. If we're ignoring the fact that the umpires failed to note the count ...

Added reply, missed that point first time through.

The failure of the umpires to note the count has no bearing. It is the same as an umpire telling a player the wrong number of outs; there are clear case play rulings that it is the primary responsibility of the teams to know the number of outs, the number of strikes, etc., and not knowing or even being told wrong by an umpire doesn't absolve them. Once the situation plays out, the rules must still be enforced based on what happened. You cannot apply "jeopardy" for the teams not knowing the game situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Added reply, missed that point first time through.

The failure of the umpires to note the count has no bearing. It is the same as an umpire telling a player the wrong number of outs; there are clear case play rulings that it is the primary responsibility of the teams to know the number of outs, the number of strikes, etc., and not knowing or even being told wrong by an umpire doesn't absolve them. Once the situation plays out, the rules must still be enforced based on what happened. You cannot apply "jeopardy" for the teams not knowing the game situation.

I was only saying that if we are ignoring (as you say we should) the umpire's mistake and put everything solely on the players (again, as you say we should), then we don't have a BOO situation - we have continuing play after an awarded base. The apparent pitch is not a pitch - the previous play could not yet be over. BR has not left the field of play, has not gone backward on the baseline, has not reached the award base - there is not yet an end to this play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Isn't it the umpires' responsibility to administer all awards? If you wanted the umpire to insure a CR actually entered the game when the change is reported, I don't know how you cannot expect an umpire who has effected an award by ruling a ball four would be any less important

For the matter of consistency, since we are not to correct other violations after a subsequent pitch or play elsewhere in the game, why would this situation be different? Multiple players could BOO and if there is one pitch to batter properly following the previous, too late! If a sub enters without reporting and there is a play, if another pitch is thrown, too late!

Just saying.......

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

A few months ago, we had a similar situation in which the umpires missed an out and continued the inning past 3 outs (caught a few batters later by the defense). The general consensus here was that once the third out was made, the third out was made, and the inning was over. Everything else was batting practice.

Is that consistent with the explanation given regarding 10.3.C?

I don't find it inconsistent. Again, no ruling is being changed or call delayed; after the third out, only the OTHER team can bat. Nothing else happened as a game situation that can be ruled on until they change sides; so no following pitch has yet been made.