What would you do?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by hit4power

I'm not a blue but curious as to thoughts on the following:

HS ball under Fed, no outs, R1 @ 2B, R2 @ 1B. B3 squares to bunt and sends a spinning squibber up the first base line, clearly curving for the foul line. PU comes out from behind the plate, throws his arms up and says "Foul" ---- at the same time as F3, standing in fair territory, boots the ball into foul territory. Since half the parents are screaming "Fair ball", the defensive plays on and when the dust settles, R1 has scored, R2 is at 3B and B3 stands at 2B.
Needless to say, the DC was livid, but after both umps talk, the play stands.

I know there is a huge component of HTBT in this, but I'm curious how often you apply 10.2.m (allowing PU to rectify any situation where an incorrect call put one side or the other in jeopardy) and how do you judge whether a muffed call actually put one side in jeopardy, i.e., in this sitch the defense never stopped playing the ball.

Foul ball. You can't uncall it when it's been called.

[JEL]

As has been noted, once it is called foul, it can't be un-done.

You are mis-applying/reading 10-2-m as well. That allows for rectification when a decision has been reversed and a team is put in jeopardy.

Once that ball was called foul, play ceases. Nothing else (of consequence) can happen. The defense can't keep playing the ball, because it is dead!

[CajunNewBlue]

Can i use 10-2-m to find out what the heck a "spinning squibber" is??

[hit4power]

Thanks for the clarification on 10-2-m. So what should have happened is for the foul call to stand, everyone goes back and we have a strike on B3 and presumably a very unhappy OC over a blown fair/foul call.

But that's not what happened, so my next question is what recourse, if any, does the DC have at this point? There's nothing to appeal is there?

[JEL]

The DC can question, stomp, cuss and spit (might not ought to!) but you are correct, there is nothing to protest. It was poor umpiring mechanics, not the mis-application of a playing rule that you are dealing with.

Oh yeah Cajun, I worked opening day rec 10U stuff saturday. It is a love/hate type thing, love the games and kids, but hate that we have digressed to using pitching machines! Easy games though but really dumbs things down.

That machine can put some funky spins on the ball. If ever there were a "spinning squibber" I had at least 5 saturday. One guy was adamant that a high pop up that hit foul behind the catcher could never roll into fair territory. It did, I pointed it fair, no one moved for a while!

[robbie]

Originally Posted by JEL

The DC can question, stomp, cuss and spit (might not ought to!) but you are correct, there is nothing to protest. It was poor umpiring mechanics, not the mis-application of a playing rule that you are dealing with.

I think I disagree. Assuming it were a tournament setting where an appeal would be rulled on immediately, I certainly could see upholding a DC's protest.

Something along the lines:
Blue ruled the ball foul on the field. When a foul is ruled, the play is dead and all play stops. But the Blue erred in allowing ensuing action to count. Thus me misapplied the rule pertaining to foul balls.

[Dutch Alex]

Originally Posted by robbie

I think I disagree. Assuming it were a tournament setting where an appeal would be rulled on immediately, I certainly could see upholding a DC's protest.

Something along the lines:
Blue ruled the ball foul on the field. When a foul is ruled, the play is dead and all play stops. But the Blue erred in allowing ensuing action to count. Thus me misapplied the rule pertaining to foul balls.

Yep, correct! If I call "Foul" and then "correct" it by pointing fair or worse let play proceed and let the play stand, at least one coach will protest AND win that protest!

[ronald]

Originally Posted by youngump

Foul ball. You can't uncall it when it's been called.

who or what says so. 10-1-4 says different. "...If there is reasonable doubt about a ruling being in conflict with the rules (called foul when it was touched fair), the coach or captain may ask that the correct ruling be made..."

Now go to 10.3m and make your ruling.

you put the batter runner in jeopardy and now you will put the defense in jeopardy.

what a screw up!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by ronald

who or what says so. 10-1-4 says different. "...If there is reasonable doubt about a ruling being in conflict with the rules (called foul when it was touched fair), the coach or captain may ask that the correct ruling be made..."

Now go to 10.3m and make your ruling.

you put the batter runner in jeopardy and now you will put the defense in jeopardy.

what a screw up!

What's that reference? I have an '08 rulebook here but not my current one. Is that a case play?

[ronald]

Youngump,

It is the 2011 rule book.

Ron

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

Youngump,

It is the 2011 rule book.

Ron

It's 10.2.3.m in my book

[youngump]

Originally Posted by ronald

Youngump,

It is the 2011 rule book.

Ron

No, it's definitely not. Took me a while to figure out what you were doing, first because I went to the ASA rule book first. Then I realized that was an NFHS citation. The problem is that you changed it when you retyped it so I definitely was never going to find the part you "quoted".

The rule says very clearly that fair foul decisions are final. Then you "quoted" the section that says that application of playing rules are not final. And you edited in a quote about a foul ball that doesn't belong. I realize your goal was to have the parenthesis read as your commentary, but only after checking your reference. Please try and be more careful with your quotes.

Now as to the discussion I wouldn't hang too much on the first part of that rule from a textual analysis standpoint, but given that this conforms generally to the way we call it around here, this statement certainly agrees. Though I've always figured that if I called it fair for a fixable reason that I could switch to foul and you could argue that this precludes that in high school. I don't think that was the intent.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

No, it's definitely not. Took me a while to figure out what you were doing, first because I went to the ASA rule book first. Then I realized that was an NFHS citation. The problem is that you changed it when you retyped it so I definitely was never going to find the part you "quoted".

The rule says very clearly that fair foul decisions are final. Then you "quoted" the section that says that application of playing rules are not final. And you edited in a quote about a foul ball that doesn't belong. I realize your goal was to have the parenthesis read as your commentary, but only after checking your reference. Please try and be more careful with your quotes.

Now as to the discussion I wouldn't hang too much on the first part of that rule from a textual analysis standpoint, but given that this conforms generally to the way we call it around here, this statement certainly agrees. Though I've always figured that if I called it fair for a fixable reason that I could switch to foul and you could argue that this precludes that in high school. I don't think that was the intent.

Just for clarification, Ronald's response was correct for ASA.

I'm not talking about a questionable, close to the line fair/foul call, but an obvious brain fart by the umpire where 100% of the people saw it fair, but the umpire called "FOUL".

This may take a UIC in a tournament, but it would be award the BR 1B and place other runners appropriately. Ronald said forced, but if it is equally as obvious a runner would have reached the next base had the umpire not erred, I will probably allow him/her to keep that base.

[ronald]

I am postive everyone of you has had doubts about your decision based on judgement on an out or safe call at first and gone for assistance in Federation. I am 100% sure the rule book says that is final (actually it uses out or safe with no qualifiers). Of course a runner can not be out if somebody pulled their foot and that is why we go for help cause we have, what, reasonable doubt about our judgement. The other umpires decision is a judgement as to whether the 1st basemen pulled her foot or not. The rule book says in the first sentence that your decision is final.

I believe the use of the word decision in the second sentence includes the use of a the word decision in the first sentence. Obviously there has to be a way for umpires to correct a judgement that conflicts with the rule.

If not, I expect some of you to never ever ask for help on a pulled foot or if the catcher dropped the ball on a tag or whatever decision that you make and the whole world knows you blew it. I do not expect you to ask your partner if the ball came loose. I do expect you to ever have a conversation with you fellow umpire about a judgement call where he or she asks what did you see or however the put it when we umpires come together to discuss a call where we need some other info. Why? cause 10-3 says all judgement calls are final. The end all is that no umpire can go for help on anything that he or she has judged as explicitly stated in 10.4 and any other judgement call because it is final.

The third sentence allows the calling umpire to ask for other umpire for info to make his final decision.

Bootom line is

what does the word decision apply to?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by ronald

Bootom line is

what does the word decision apply to?

The outcome of the umpire's judgement even if it differs from an initial call.

I think the word to clarify is not "decision", but "final" meaning that they are not changeable by coaches' disagreement, official protests, UIC, or anyone else but the calling umpire.