Run scores ... or not... or yes it does 2 innings later

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, how in the name of Laverne De Fazio does any ONE, let alone an entire crew, with such limited knowledge of a simple scoring rule get assigned a game of this magnitude? Yes, to many of us, it may not be that important a game, but to the state of Wisconsin it is.

I understand and do not disagree with Steve. The event occurred and the run scored as they already ruled in the first appeal.

Yet the point of the timing being made is not without merit in a regular situation. Unfortunately, how is a coach to know how to effect a proper and timely protest when the sanctioning association does not permit them? That point alone, IMO, discredits the entire program and is somewhat of a cowardly position to be allowed to exist.

The WIAA has brought this onto themselves and since they are not operating in accordance with NFHS rules, special circumstances exist and there needs to be some common sense applied. As umpires, we recognize this on a regular basis when dealing with half-assed "local" or "league" rules which contradict the rule book of the sanctioning body.

So, I'm on board with Steve and scoring the run. Any complaints about that should be addressed to the weak management of the WIAA.

To answer the bold part. Read the rulebook. This is the same way the umpires should have known to handle the situation properly as in the rules. The umpires really should have known the rule considering it is in the rules covering umpires and their duties.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Ahhhhhhhh, see, right there is the semantical key to the whole thread.

In the OP case in Wisconsin, the administrative decision is that the umpire error did NOT eliminate the run. It simply created a scoring error, because the run DID score.

The problem with saying the run did score is this. Did the umpire say the run did not score, then we aren't talking about a scoring error, we are talking about a misapplication of the rules, which falls differently under the rules than a scoring error.

I stand by my opinion, that IF the umpire said the run did not score, this is not a scoring error, but a misapplication of the rules and this, by rule, needed to be ruled on at the time of the ruling, not an inning later.

If the umpire never said "the run does not score" but the scorer assumed the run did not score, we do have a different situation, and at that time it would be a scoring error, which is correctable.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The problem with saying the run did score is this. Did the umpire say the run did not score, then we aren't talking about a scoring error, we are talking about a misapplication of the rules, which falls differently under the rules than a scoring error.

I stand by my opinion, that IF the umpire said the run did not score, this is not a scoring error, but a misapplication of the rules and this, by rule, needed to be ruled on at the time of the ruling, not an inning later.

If the umpire never said "the run does not score" but the scorer assumed the run did not score, we do have a different situation, and at that time it would be a scoring error, which is correctable.

Yet, despite you repeating your personal interpretation (opinion) again and again, the administrative decision in Wisconsin remains that the umpire's decision did not change the fact that, by rule, the run did score.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Yet, despite you repeating your personal interpretation (opinion) again and again, the administrative decision in Wisconsin remains that the umpire's decision did not change the fact that, by rule, the run did score.

I would love to hear the justification by the WIAA for not following the rule as written in the book. This is NOT a scoring error, as it has been described. Again, as I have stated, IF the umpires said the run did not score, they misapplied a rule, and as such it needs to be ruled upon immediately, not an inning and a half later.

If they never said the run scores or does not score, this does become a scoring error which is a correctable situation.

The simple fact is the team that lost the game has a major complaint about being screwed over by the umpires and the WIAA in this case.

Also, how on Earth does the WIAA's being called even impact the situation, since as others have said, Wisconsin is a non-protest state. The calling of the WIAA office should have had ZERO bearing on the ruling, but according to the article, they affirmed the call.

This entire mess stinks to high heaven, and it all starts with umpires who apparently either kicked the call in the first place, or failed to state if the run scored or did not score. Either way this entire mess does fall on the umpires who, by not knowing the rules, impacted the result of the game. Hopefully that is something we can agree on.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This entire mess stinks to high heaven, and it all starts with umpires who apparently either kicked the call in the first place, or failed to state if the run scored or did not score. Either way this entire mess does fall on the umpires who, by not knowing the rules, impacted the result of the game. Hopefully that is something we can agree on.

Nope. What impacted the result of the game was the fact that the losing team scored only one run. They had plenty of opportunities to score more, but they failed. And there is no denying that they allowed two runs.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

To answer the bold part. Read the rulebook. This is the same way the umpires should have known to handle the situation properly as in the rules. The umpires really should have known the rule considering it is in the rules covering umpires and their duties.

Make up your mind. In one post, you complain there is a lack of competency and in the next you fault them for what you just used as an excuse.

Stupid is as stupid does and apparently, there was a whole lot of stupid going on in the WIAA, and any other association that is too lazy to accommodate the game and those who play it. Of course, JMHO.

[Andy]

I have learned that this particular situation was passed on to an ASA National Umpire Staff member who is also the chair of the NFHS Softball Rules Committee.

Here is JJ's response to the situation:

OMG!
When the batter flew out for the second out of the inning, no runners were forced to advance. R2 on second base was not a force out on appeal, it was a "timing" play, since R1 scored before the third out of the inning, (and it was not a force out) R1's run should have been allowed. Umpires made an incorrect ruling when they took the run off the board. Because the out at 2B was the third out of the inning, the offended team on offense needed to appeal before all infielders left the field that the umpires ruled incorrectly. Since this did not happen, the incorrect ruling stands and the run was removed.
The umpires ruled incorrectly a second time when several innings later they gave the run back. Again, it was to late to appeal the incorrect ruling by the umpires.
* Rule 2-1-1 Appeal...A play or rule violation on which the umpire does not make a ruling on until requested by a coach or player as in (7-1-2; 8-6-6 through 9); Rule 2-1-2b. Types of Appeals...... Leaving a base on a caught fly ball before the ball is first touched.
* Rule 2-63.... A Timing Play is a play when the last out of an inning is not the result of a force out and the exact time of the out may or may not allow a run to score. If a runner should touch home base an instant before the last out (which is not a force out) is made, then the run would be scored. If a runner should touch home base an instant after the last out, then no run would be scored.
* Rule 2-1-4b...When Appeals May Be Made: at the end of a half-inning, before all the infielders have left fair territory and the catcher vacates her normal fielding position.

[MD Longhorn]

Ugh. Not sure if that makes me feel any better, that someone that high up would so egregiously confuse the difference between "protest" and "appeal". NONE of this (well, other than getting the runner out for leaving 2nd too early) involves "an appeal". Yuck.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ugh. Not sure if that makes me feel any better, that someone that high up would so egregiously confuse the difference between "protest" and "appeal". NONE of this (well, other than getting the runner out for leaving 2nd too early) involves "an appeal". Yuck.

Yeah. It's circular logic that the appeal, which was timely made and upheld, then extends to the issue of the run scoring. That is absolutely NOT an appeal, by an definition of an appeal.

Sorry, JJ; not answered nor cited correctly, irrespective of your obvious credentials.

[Dakota]

Leaving that aside (appeal v protest), he does validate my view that this is not a mere scorekeeping error. It is an erroneous ruling by the umpires, and cannot be corrected unless it is done within the time allowed or follows proper protest procedure if corrected later (replay from the point of the overruled ruling).

I've read both Steve's and Mike's responses, but remain unconvinced (no disrespect intended).

And, neither am I convinced by an argument around ad hocing things since protests are not allowed by the state high school association. If protests are not allowed, they are not allowed, which means everyone must live with the incorrect ruling.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Leaving that aside (appeal v protest), he does validate my view that this is not a mere scorekeeping error. It is an erroneous ruling by the umpires, and cannot be corrected unless it is done within the time allowed or follows proper protest procedure if corrected later (replay from the point of the overruled ruling).

Where does the rules make such a statement? Please don't cite 10.3.C as there was no reversal of a call that placed a team in jeopardy. The inning was complete and no subsequent play was affected by the call.

I've read both Steve's and Mike's responses, but remain unconvinced (no disrespect intended).

None taken, but JJ is a she and this is the type of compromise a UIC is paid to handle. The only thing that the crew did was put a number up on the board that should have been there two innings earlier.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where does the rules make such a statement?

Which statement are you refering to?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

and no subsequent play was affected by the call.

Demonstrably untrue over the history of this game. Teams play differently when they are behind v. tied or ahead. They take more risks, etc. The reversal of the ruling to score the run took away from the losing team the opportunity to make those more aggressive / risky plays

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...but JJ is a she...

Thanks for the correction. I knew that, but didn't catch the mistake in my post.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Leaving that aside (appeal v protest), he does validate my view that this is not a mere scorekeeping error. It is an erroneous ruling by the umpires, and cannot be corrected unless it is done within the time allowed or follows proper protest procedure if corrected later (replay from the point of the overruled ruling).

I've read both Steve's and Mike's responses, but remain unconvinced (no disrespect intended).

And, neither am I convinced by an argument around ad hocing things since protests are not allowed by the state high school association. If protests are not allowed, they are not allowed, which means everyone must live with the incorrect ruling.

Tom, I've "known" you for years on this and other messageboards. No disrespect was read into you remaining unconvinced. There, frankly, isn't any clearly right answer.

At the worst, absent anything absolutely definitive, I would go back to our purpose in being there; to make the game follow the rules intended to promote a fairness and equity into the game. Arbitrarily refusing to score a run that has scored under the rules is simply not why we are there.

The following is certainly a hyperbolic extension, but, just suppose:

During a game, the umpire tells the scorekeeper to change the score; to ANYTHING other than the correct score. Let's say he subtracts two runs from one team because he didn't like the conversations he had with their head coach. The umpire demands that the new score be posted, despite the absence of any rule support, or support of either scorebook (obviously).

In this league, the rule is "no protests allowed". The scorekeeper believes the umpire has that authority, and changes the score.

So my question is, is the real score the score of the game, or what the umpire says it is? There is no obvious procedure to change it back; or should the "league" just do what's right?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The following is certainly a hyperbolic extension, but, just suppose:

During a game, the umpire tells the scorekeeper to change the score; to ANYTHING other than the correct score. Let's say he subtracts two runs from one team because he didn't like the conversations he had with their head coach. The umpire demands that the new score be posted, despite the absence of any rule support, or support of either scorebook (obviously).

In this league, the rule is "no protests allowed". The scorekeeper believes the umpire has that authority, and changes the score.

So my question is, is the real score the score of the game, or what the umpire says it is? There is no obvious procedure to change it back; or should the "league" just do what's right?

I like your hypothetical but it brings up the same two problems.

First as it effects the rest of the game: Let's say that it's now 0-2 instead of 2-2 and it's the bottom of the seventh. Should the 2 run coach bring in his outfield since a long fly scores the winning run or play back and trade and out for a run? Or for that matter. Suppose it's 2-1 instead of 2-3. And the home team doesn't even get to play the bottom half of the seventh because the umpire changed the score.

And second, it's somewhat tangential to your hypothetical that it was a scoring error instead of a rules error. If instead of deciding to take two runs away from the team because he's upset with the coach, he directs the first two batters of the inning to take 4 base awards before he throws the pitcher the ball. They have now legally scored and the runs count. If I understand you correctly, this a clear misapplication of the rules is not a scoring error and they are stuck with the crazy result. But it's just as problematic in my mind as the one they can fix. [That said, I can certainly see a case for fixing the first and not the second along the lines ruled here.]

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Nope. What impacted the result of the game was the fact that the losing team scored only one run. They had plenty of opportunities to score more, but they failed. And there is no denying that they allowed two runs.

I have to disagree that the situation did not impact the game.

Here is an example. Team thinks they are tied 1-1. They have a runner on second with 2 outs in the 6th inning. Line drive to CF, the coach thinks about sending the runner home but because the game is tied, decides against it in the hopes the next batter will drive in the run. Instead the next batter hits into a double play. Had the coach known the team was down 1 run, she might have sent the runner home in an effort to tie the game, rather than risk the winning run being thrown out at home giving the opponent the momentum.

The simple fact is the altered result had the potential to change the way the game was played both teams.

Another possibility is that the team that ended up winning may have played differently if they knew they were up one run rather than tied.

Yes, by rule, the score should have been 2-1 at the end of the half inning in which the error was made by the umpires. However, when the half inning ended and the next half inning began, the score was legally 1-1, which it should have been until another run scored subsequent to the mess in the previous half inning.