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

[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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

Good question. I know of a case where a football result was changed because of a scoring mistake - even though the now losing team actually ran out the clock on purpose at the end, and could have tried to score had they known they were actually down by one, and not up by one. (This involved a junior high scoring rule for PAT's kicked rather than thrown or run in).

I know of another case (football again) where the state ruled the score was final even after it was reviewed on film to be incorrect.

So who knows.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Good question. I know of a case where a football result was changed because of a scoring mistake - even though the now losing team actually ran out the clock on purpose at the end, and could have tried to score had they known they were actually down by one, and not up by one. (This involved a junior high scoring rule for PAT's kicked rather than thrown or run in).

I know of another case (football again) where the state ruled the score was final even after it was reviewed on film to be incorrect.

So who knows.

It seems to me that it is either a "clerical error" or a protest situation. I can't be a "clerical error" until the game ends, and then after everyone goes home, it is a protest situation and not correctable.

[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.

[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.

[Dakota]

OK, since we seem to be posting alternate scenarios to illustrate or illuminate the situation,...

In the original situation, the scored was changed between the top and bottom of the 7th after a "30-minute discussion", so the home team was now ahead and the game over.

Suppose this discussion didn't happen then. Suppose the visitors went ahead by a 4-1 score in the top of the 15th inning, the home team failed to score in the bottom, and THEN the "30-minute discussion" was held.

Would the game be reverted to a 2-1 victory by home after 6.5 complete, and all play after that voided?

In every protest situation, the error being protested is that "by rule" a different ruling should have been made. There is no judgment required. It is "by rule". Therefore, I don't see how it is suddenly different if the thing that should have happened "by rule" is a run scored rather than something else.

In the OP, the umpires misinterpreted the force out rule. The remedy for that is for the offended team to protest. Even if there is no state-level protest resolving process, the remedy remains the one and only remedy. If the state takes that remedy away, then there is no remedy. At the least, the obligation was on the offended team to lodge their "protest" at the time and insist that the "30-minute discussion" be held right then and there.

The fact that they did not do that means they lost their opportunity to get the result of the umpire misinterpretation changed.

The over the top scenario offered by Steve was an umpire blatantly exceeding his authority. Even so, the remedy must be to replay the game from that point forward since teams do make their decisions on strategies, risks, attempting steals, squeeze plays, and on and on and on based on the current game situation.

That's how I see it.