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

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

So...could this apply to other situations like...

Bases loaded. 2 outs. Illegal pitch. Ball awarded but umpires neglect to advance runners. Next pitch retires the batter. Inning or so later this is brought to the attention of the umpires. Same result as the scenario of the original post? I'd say this and the OP are my fault big time, I accept the storm that comes.

Not the same. While the base SHOULD have been awarded, the runner never advanced and actually scored. If the OC doesn't know the runner should advance, HIS bad, too.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not the same. While the base SHOULD have been awarded, the runner never advanced and actually scored. If the OC doesn't know the runner should advance, HIS bad, too.

Although they are both misapplications of a rule; which I think is LJ's point.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Although they are both misapplications of a rule; which I think is LJ's point.

They are; but the similarity ends there.

In one case, the run scored; by rule, and in actuality, the runner advanced and touched home plate safely.

In the other case, the run SHOULD have scored, but never did; the runner stayed on third base without advancing and touching home. The run cannot score without scoring, can it?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

They are; but the similarity ends there.

In one case, the run scored; by rule, and in actuality, the runner advanced and touched home plate safely.

In the other case, the run SHOULD have scored, but never did; the runner stayed on third base without advancing and touching home. The run cannot score without scoring, can it?

I understand the difference; just the point that umpire error eliminated the run.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I understand the difference; just the point that umpire error eliminated the run.

Sure... but the difference between the two scenarios is what makes the result different.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sure... but the difference between the two scenarios is what makes the result different.

And so, we have answered the question, LJ and apparently recognized the point you were making.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I understand the difference; just the point that umpire error eliminated the run.

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.

[CecilOne]

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.

ok

[Dakota]

What would have been the result if this was discovered the next day?

[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.