Ball 4 missed

[NCASAUmp]

From another forum (cleaned up a little):

Men's Slow pitch softball league 1-1 start count. (ASA rules)
Runner on 2nd, pitcher throws ball 4, but both umpires did not pay attention to it. After "ball 4", another pitch is thrown and batter hits an RBI double. After the play is dead, a player on the opposite team yells out that the pitch before was "Ball 4". Umpires discuss situation and overturn play. Base runner goes back to 2nd base, batter is walked and gets 1st base.

Do you agree with the ruling on the field? Why or why not?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Not.

The offense is responsible to know the situation, even if the umpires do not make it an issue. After ball 4, that batter became a batter-runner, and thes at-bat had ended. At the next pitch, it was the wrong batter, therefore batting out of order.

Play is nullified, R1 returns to 2nd. B2's hit is nullified; B3 is out because B2 batted in that spot in the batting order.

Tricky part is what to do with B2. There is no clear rule that makes B2 out, as 8-2.D requires the BR to enter the team area to be considered abandoning the effort to advance. But, I cannot see sending B2 to 1st now, when B2 batted out of order and caused B3 to be out. And, since we know the scorebook must "balance" (unless an unreported BOA occurs), we cannot simply skip B2 without an out or placing on a base.

So, without an true rule support other than 10.1 (ruling on a play not specifically covered), my opinion is to "enhance" 8-2.D and declare B2 out for failing to take the awarded base. Two outs, and R1 back on 2nd.

Even if you choose another option for B2 under 10.1 (as you are justified in doing), you cannot ignore that B2 batted in B3's spot, and the BOA rule must be enforced.

[shipwreck]

In my post days ago our umpiring crew got chided by some when a team reported a CR and that CR never came in to replace the pitcher. Hope it comes up on this one since this is as bad or worse than ours. Dave

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not.

The offense is responsible to know the situation, even if the umpires do not make it an issue. After ball 4, that batter became a batter-runner, and thes at-bat had ended. At the next pitch, it was the wrong batter, therefore batting out of order.

Play is nullified, R1 returns to 2nd. B2's hit is nullified; B3 is out because B2 batted in that spot in the batting order.

Tricky part is what to do with B2. There is no clear rule that makes B2 out, as 8-2.D requires the BR to enter the team area to be considered abandoning the effort to advance. But, I cannot see sending B2 to 1st now, when B2 batted out of order and caused B3 to be out. And, since we know the scorebook must "balance" (unless an unreported BOA occurs), we cannot simply skip B2 without an out or placing on a base.

So, without an true rule support other than 10.1 (ruling on a play not specifically covered), my opinion is to "enhance" 8-2.D and declare B2 out for failing to take the awarded base. Two outs, and R1 back on 2nd.

Even if you choose another option for B2 under 10.1 (as you are justified in doing), you cannot ignore that B2 batted in B3's spot, and the BOA rule must be enforced.

May I point out that 10.3.C states that "the plate umpire may rectify any situation in which the reversal or an umpire's decision or a delayed call by an umpire places a batter-runner, a runner or the defensive team in jeopardy. This correction is not possible after one pitch legal or illegal or after the pitcher....yada, yada, yada".

Could it not be said that the umpire's failure to award 1st (here comes that preventive umpiring thing again) to the batter qualifies here?

After all, if the defense got the batter out, do you think they would have said, "I'm sorry, Mr. Umpire, but you cannot award us that out since the player in jeopardy actually received a fourth ball on the previous pitch and should be returned to active participation on first base"?

What if there were two pitches, does that make a difference? What if they missed a strike instead of a ball and the batter hit into a double play? Can the offense then claim that the batter was actually out on the previous pitch to nullify the defense's effort in retiring two for the price of one?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

May I point out that 10.3.C states that "the plate umpire may rectify any situation in which the reversal or an umpire's decision or a delayed call by an umpire places a batter-runner, a runner or the defensive team in jeopardy. This correction is not possible after one pitch legal or illegal or after the pitcher....yada, yada, yada".

Could it not be said that the umpire's failure to award 1st (here comes that preventive umpiring thing again) to the batter qualifies here?

After all, if the defense got the batter out, do you think they would have said, "I'm sorry, Mr. Umpire, but you cannot award us that out since the player in jeopardy actually received a fourth ball on the previous pitch and should be returned to active participation on first base"?

What if there were two pitches, does that make a difference? What if they missed a strike instead of a ball and the batter hit into a double play? Can the offense then claim that the batter was actually out on the previous pitch to nullify the defense's effort in retiring two for the price of one?

Yes, it definitely could be said that and if another pitch had not been thrown then you should correct it. But once another pitch is thrown how can you ignore the "it's too late" language.
________
MEDICAL MAIJUANA DISPENSERIES MAP OF COLORADO

[youngump]

Originally Posted by youngump

Yes, it definitely could be said that and if another pitch had not been thrown then you should correct it. But once another pitch is thrown how can you ignore the "it's too late" language.

Actually, second guessing myself here I'm not sure the umpire made a call at any point so maybe it isn't too late to fix it.
Suppose that the umpire calls ball 4 (and even makes it clear the runner should advance) and steps out to watch the runner advance. The offense and the defense obliviously stand there and finally the pitcher throws home using an underhand motion that resembles a pitch (but it's not because you can't pitch the ball until the previous play ends and it hasn't). At this point we have intentional interference with a pitched ball and the batter runner is out. Bring up B3. [And ream the umpire for not making the walk more clear]

Now the only thing different here is that the umpire didn't clearly tell the runner to advance and make the correct mechanic for watching a runner take first base. But I don't think the defense can be penalized for the umpires bad mechanics.

Of course if the OP is slow pitch w/o stealing, then the ball was dead and the umpire calling play ball is a call that happened before a pitch.
________
Ashy

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

May I point out that 10.3.C states that "the plate umpire may rectify any situation in which the reversal or an umpire's decision or a delayed call by an umpire places a batter-runner, a runner or the defensive team in jeopardy. This correction is not possible after one pitch legal or illegal or after the pitcher....yada, yada, yada".

Could it not be said that the umpire's failure to award 1st (here comes that preventive umpiring thing again) to the batter qualifies here?

After all, if the defense got the batter out, do you think they would have said, "I'm sorry, Mr. Umpire, but you cannot award us that out since the player in jeopardy actually received a fourth ball on the previous pitch and should be returned to active participation on first base"?

What if there were two pitches, does that make a difference? What if they missed a strike instead of a ball and the batter hit into a double play? Can the offense then claim that the batter was actually out on the previous pitch to nullify the defense's effort in retiring two for the price of one?

In my mind, when this sequence unfolds, 10.3 doesn't apply; the umpire is not reversing a call, nor making one late. The umpire does not award the batter 1st base on ball 4; the rule 8-1.C states the batter is awarded 1st base. We are specifically directed NOT to point to 1st base on a walk, nor to point to the dugout on strike 3; the batter is expected to KNOW what direction to go in when these situations occur.

So, the umpire is not changing a call, nor has the umpire delayed in making one, as none was mandated beyond "Ball". Yep, umpire should stand out from behind the catcher knowing it is ball 4, and should even repeat "That's ball 4"; again, preventative officiating. But B2 is now batting in B3's spot in the order, since B2's at bat is officially over; whether declared, base pointed to, explained consciously, or not. I submit we must rule on that when the BOO appeal is made.

If B2 was struck out on the previous pitch (and this is definitively determined by the umpires), then nothing has substantially changed. B2 is out, and the at-bat has ended, and B2 is still batting out of order. All play by B2 batting out of order is nullified, B2 was already out, and B3 is out for BOO. B4 bats next with 2 outs (or first next inning.

If B2 hits into an out or a double play, the only team with the option to appeal BOO is the defense. If they don't appeal, you make no ruling. Once B3 follows and takes a next pitch, there can be no BOO appeal. The offense has no appeal, and, as you noted, cannot ask for a correction of the situation (one they caused) after a following pitch.

[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?

[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.

[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

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.

[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.......