Trivia 4

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Lacking any further interpretation, I agree, both are out and coach is gone.

I'm in slight disagreement, for the sake of discussion. This was not caught until after a play was made. 8-7-Y says "...following any conference" ... not a play. So in the OP, a play has gone by, and one runner has scored (not on any base.) I find it hard to enforce 8-7-Y after the play has been made.

However... arguing the other way, say the runners switch after the conference, and it's noted before a play. Switch them back, no harm, no foul. Nothing has been done at this point to offend the defense. Following this logic, the rule must be in the book to deal with the situation after a play.

Flopping back to my first point, when would we stop enforcing the rule? After 2 plays have gone by? One pitch?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SRW

However... arguing the other way, say the runners switch after the conference, and it's noted before a play. Switch them back, no harm, no foul. Nothing has been done at this point to offend the defense. Following this logic, the rule must be in the book to deal with the situation after a play.

No harm, no foul? So you quote part of 8-7-Y, then advocate just switching them back when 8-7-Y happens? The ASA book is very clear on what to do if this is caught in time. 2 outs and an ejection (at least). Not "switch them back, no harm, no foul".

After a play - I understand your questioning of it. Part of me sees this like a BOO - too late to fix (although if I can't call the runners out because of the intervening play, I'm definitely tossing the coach). The other part of me sees stretching "following" to include this, after all, it doesn't say IMMEDIATELY following. I think I'm leaning toward the latter.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No harm, no foul? So you quote part of 8-7-Y, then advocate just switching them back when 8-7-Y happens? The ASA book is very clear on what to do if this is caught in time. 2 outs and an ejection (at least). Not "switch them back, no harm, no foul".

After a play - I understand your questioning of it. Part of me sees this like a BOO - too late to fix (although if I can't call the runners out because of the intervening play, I'm definitely tossing the coach). The other part of me sees stretching "following" to include this, after all, it doesn't say IMMEDIATELY following. I think I'm leaning toward the latter.

So if the EFFECT for 8.7.Y read something like.....

"Each runner on an improper base shall be declared out when such action is discovered by or brought to the umpire's attention by the defensive team prior to or after the completion of the at bat that was in effect during the offensive conference.
In addition the manager shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Would that adequately and fairly cover all scenarios?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

So if the EFFECT for 8.7.Y read something like.....

"Each runner on an improper base shall be declared out when such action is discovered by or brought to the umpire's attention by the defensive team prior to or after the completion of the at bat that was in effect during the offensive conference.
In addition the manager shall be ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Would that adequately and fairly cover all scenarios?

Yes, if you can talk yourself into "following a conference" including "following a conference and an interceding play".

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes, if you can talk yourself into "following a conference" including "following a conference and an interceding play".

Well I never professed to be a rule writer.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No harm, no foul? So you quote part of 8-7-Y, then advocate just switching them back when 8-7-Y happens? The ASA book is very clear on what to do if this is caught in time. 2 outs and an ejection (at least). Not "switch them back, no harm, no foul".

After a play - I understand your questioning of it. Part of me sees this like a BOO - too late to fix (although if I can't call the runners out because of the intervening play, I'm definitely tossing the coach). The other part of me sees stretching "following" to include this, after all, it doesn't say IMMEDIATELY following. I think I'm leaning toward the latter.

My point in "no harm, no foul" is similar to having an improper batter at the plate - in the middle of the at-bat, you can replace the improper batter with the proper batter ... 'no harm, no foul.' While yes, 8-7-Y says we should have 2 outs and an ejection, my point is that, immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, why couldn't we put them back on the correct bases with "no harm, no foul?" The defense, at this point, hasn't been yet offended.

[RKBUmp]

So in other words the rule as stated would never be enforced? If no harm no foul before the pitch, and unenforceable after a pitch, just when do you enforce it?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SRW

My point in "no harm, no foul" is similar to having an improper batter at the plate - in the middle of the at-bat, you can replace the improper batter with the proper batter ... 'no harm, no foul.' While yes, 8-7-Y says we should have 2 outs and an ejection, my point is that, immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, why couldn't we put them back on the correct bases with "no harm, no foul?" The defense, at this point, hasn't been yet offended.

Because the only no brainer on this question is that if this would have happened immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, you'd have 2 outs and ejection. When, exactly, would you apply 87Y if not then?

The ACTUAL difficult part of this question is whether we can enforce 87Y after a play.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The ACTUAL difficult part of this question is whether we can enforce 87Y after a play.

Absent an interpretation/AR from OKC, as currently written I can't see how.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Absent an interpretation/AR from OKC, as currently written I can't see how.

There you lost me. Where in this rule (conspicuously absent is "immediately" or "before the next play") do you see how you CAN'T enforce the rule in this case absent an interpretation from OKC?

I would use the same timing as NCAA; as long as even one is on base, that one is illegally there, if both, I get both. If appealed before a next pitch to erase an illegally located runner that just scored, I'm getting them both.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There you lost me. Where in this rule (conspicuously absent is "immediately" or "before the next play") do you see how you CAN'T enforce the rule in this case absent an interpretation from OKC?

I would use the same timing as NCAA; as long as even one is on base, that one is illegally there, if both, I get both. If appealed before a next pitch to erase an illegally located runner that just scored, I'm getting them both.

Note: Though it can be brought to the attention to the umpire by the offended team, that is not noted as a prerequisite to enforce this rule.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There you lost me. Where in this rule (conspicuously absent is "immediately" or "before the next play") do you see how you CAN'T enforce the rule in this case absent an interpretation from OKC?

I would use the same timing as NCAA; as long as even one is on base, that one is illegally there, if both, I get both. If appealed before a next pitch to erase an illegally located runner that just scored, I'm getting them both.

OK.....I can see your point there, no disagreement,

Honestly though, until MD started this thread, I never gave any thought to having to enforce 8.7.Y. after an intervening play. Using the NCAA timing works for me, but IMO 8.7.Y, as written, could still use a 'little more meat on it's bones'. It would make life simpler should MD's sitch occur in a game we're working.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by SRW

My point in "no harm, no foul" is similar to having an improper batter at the plate - in the middle of the at-bat, you can replace the improper batter with the proper batter ... 'no harm, no foul.' While yes, 8-7-Y says we should have 2 outs and an ejection, my point is that, immediately following the conference and immediately prior to any play, why couldn't we put them back on the correct bases with "no harm, no foul?" The defense, at this point, hasn't been yet offended.

But the offense attempted to cheat.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

But the offense attempted to cheat.

They did cheat and you caught them. Enforce the penalty.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

They did cheat and you caught them. Enforce the penalty.

I never said don't.