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

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which statement are you refering to?

"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)."

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

I disagree twice. To start, there was no subsequent play. The inning ended at that point, so nothing more occurred that was affected by that ruling.

Secondly, the score is a weak excuse. Used to tell my team to always play as if we were down ten. IMO, playing otherwise is foolish.

You should be playing to win all the time. Obviously, that team did not play well enough to win. There is no argument, one team legally and officially scored more runs than the other in the official number of innings.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

"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)."

C'mon, Mike. The protest needs to be filed in the time allowed (during which the umpires may have seen their error and corrected it), or if not, the protest is ruled on later, and the game replayed from the point of the erroneous ruling.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I disagree twice. To start, there was no subsequent play. The inning ended at that point, so nothing more occurred that was affected by that ruling.

Secondly, the score is a weak excuse. Used to tell my team to always play as if we were down ten. IMO, playing otherwise is foolish.

You should be playing to win all the time. Obviously, that team did not play well enough to win. There is no argument, one team legally and officially scored more runs than the other in the official number of innings.

You seem to be focused on the "jeopardy" part of this or something. It was a misinterpretation of the definition of a force out that needs to be corrected... but corrected properly.

And, don't give me the "always give 110%" speech. If a team is down by a run in the late innings, they will take greater risks. For example, runner on 3rd, attempt a squeeze play. If the scored is tied, they will not necessarily attempt such a risky play. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

This was a protest situation that was not followed by the offended team. And, as I posted earlier, if the state league is not allowing protests, then there is no remedy for this at all.

If this can be corrected as it was, how long is too long? Later that evening? The next day? After the following game in the post season has been played?

If it can't be corrected 5 days later, where is your rule book now?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

C'mon, Mike. The protest needs to be filed in the time allowed (during which the umpires may have seen their error and corrected it), or if not, the protest is ruled on later, and the game replayed from the point of the irroneous ruling.

But those options were not permitted. It is what it is, and the final score was correct. Would you be so forgiving if the umpires refused to allow the run acknowledging their mistake, but said, "tough shit, you are too late to argue" and the headlines read "Umpires Kicked Call Costs Team Shot At Championship"?

I understand what the rules state, as does Steve. Yes it is a tough decision, but it is based on irrefutable facts based on what the teams actually did on the field, not on some award or presumed advance based on a judgment of what may or may not have happened.

You seem to be focused on the "jeopardy" part of this or something. It was a misinterpretation of the definition of a force out that needs to be corrected... but corrected properly.

No, the jeopardy is coming from the rule you are promoting as the cause for not making the correction.

And, don't give me the "always give 110%" speech. If a team is down by a run in the late innings, they will take greater risks. For example, runner on 3rd, attempt a squeeze play. If the scored is tied, they will not necessarily attempt such a risky play. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Actually, I would never change my philosophy. You use the plays the players are capable of making regardless of the situation. If you have a combination capable of executing a squeeze play, I would use it if it gave me better odds of scoring a run. Don't care what the score is. I'm a firm believer in hitting the opponent until the referee tells you to stop. I believe the same is true in all sports. You don't want to be run-ruled or embarrassed, learn how to play better or change your scheduling priorities.

This was a protest situation that was not followed by the offended team. And, as I posted earlier, if the state league is not allowing protests, then there is no remedy for this at all.

If this can be corrected as it was, how long is too long? Later that evening? The next day? After the following game in the post season has been played?
If it can't be corrected 5 days later, where is your rule book now?

But is wasn't 5 days later. It was then and there on the field while the game was still in progress. This is why there should always be a UIC on site in championship play and instantly accessible the moment a coach uses the "P" word.

Of course, it should never come the this and the umpires should be embarrassed and have probably lost a fair amount of integrity over this. But when it does, there needs to be some common sense and that is why the UIC gets the big bucks.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But those options were not permitted.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Would you be so forgiving if the umpires refused to allow the run acknowledging their mistake, but said, "tough shit, you are too late to argue" and the headlines read "Umpires Kicked Call Costs Team Shot At Championship"?

I'm not being forgiving. In fact, almost the opposite. The state league took away the protest. Therefore, they took away the opportunity to correct this mistake. The umpires applied the "force out run scores" rule to a live ball appeal. This mistake is hardly rare among coaches, fans, scorekeepers, but the umpires SHOULD be embarrassed.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I understand what the rules state, as does Steve.

That's a given.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yes it is a tough decision, but it is based on irrefutable facts based on what the teams actually did on the field, not on some award or presumed advance based on a judgment of what may or may not have happened.

And, what they did NOT do on the field... file a protest.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, the jeopardy is coming from the rule you are promoting as the cause for not making the correction.

I'm not talking about jeopardy, I'm talking about a misinterpretation of a rule and the procedures and limitations the rule book places on the offended team to get remedy.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, I would never change my philosophy. You use the plays the players are capable of making regardless of the situation. If you have a combination capable of executing a squeeze play, I would use it if it gave me better odds of scoring a run. Don't care what the score is. I'm a firm believer in hitting the opponent until the referee tells you to stop. I believe the same is true in all sports. You don't want to be run-ruled or embarrassed, learn how to play better or change your scheduling priorities.

You seem to have the situation reversed. If the rule had been applied correctly at the time, the visiting team would have found themselves down by one run in the late innings. Taking additional risks on low-odds plays is a valid choice and is not the same thing at all as "hitting the opponent until the referee tells you to stop."

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But is wasn't 5 days later. It was then and there on the field while the game was still in progress.

But, it was after the time when a protest could have been filed by rule, and that is what the team did... they came out on the field with their rule book and filed a protest. The umpires did not suddenly have an epiphany and correct their error... the team file a protest after it was too late to file a protest.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is why there should always be a UIC on site in championship play and instantly accessible the moment a coach uses the "P" word.

We agree here. I do understand the logistical nightmare of having to handle in-season protests at the state level a day or two later, and then having to schedule a time to replay the game, but instant protest handling could easily be done in the post season. There is no reason this cannot be done. Yeah, they would have to pay the UIC to be present. Maybe in Delaware the UICs demand too much money!

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Of course, it should never come the this and the umpires should be embarrassed and have probably lost a fair amount of integrity over this. But when it does, there needs to be some common sense and that is why the UIC gets the big bucks.

Again, agree, but the UIC needs to be on-site to handle protest properly.

[Manny A]

Love the dialogue. But this fact remains as was previously mentioned: There was precedent set in an MLB game just a year or so ago!

True, this is FED softball, not MLB. But the rules on scoring runs with two outs (timing play, appeals, etc. etc.) are the same in both organizations for this particular scenario. And in the MLB game, there was a protest lodged when the run was counted two innings later, the protest was considered by the powers-that-be, and it was denied. The end result was that the run counted because it legally scored; there was no replay from the time of the mistake, and no removal of the run because the offended team did not file a protest when the run was initially disallowed.

So, what happened in this high school game is almost exact to what happened in the MLB game, minus the opportunity for the losing team's coach to have a protest heard. I seriously doubt these umpires ruled the way they did because of what happened in the MLB game; they probably had no clue of that history. But there's no denying that they did what their professional colleagues did under similar circumstances.

All that said, shame on these umpires (in both games) for initially screwing up a relatively simple concept when it comes to scoring runs. But the runs did properly and legally scored, and must be recognized.

[MD Longhorn]

I completely see both sides of this discussion - which is what makes it a good discussion, and is why we have two of our best guys here not in agreement on something.

However, I have to chime in with this. Regarding whether the run not being on the board affected the game.

For a guy who has been around this game forever and understands its nuances - to imply that a coach's strategy is identical regardless of score is extremely strange. Your strategy down 3 in the last inning or down 1 in the last inning is completely different. Forget "risky moves" that Dakota alludes to... you would make substitutions (esp pinch run; pinch hit) differently in the last inning of a game that you were down 3 vs down 1. You would sacrifice down 1, but NEVER down 3. It's not about telling the players to play their hardest no matter what - it's about game strategy. If a coach coaches the same way down 1 in the last inning of a playoff game than they do down 3, they are an extremely poor coach.

That said... in this PARTICULAR instance, I don't believe it mattered. I truly do not see a difference in the strategy one would use in a tie game vs being down 1. In either case, you are scratching and clawing for one run - the strategy is identical.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I'm not being forgiving. In fact, almost the opposite. The state league took away the protest. Therefore, they took away the opportunity to correct this mistake. The umpires applied the "force out run scores" rule to a live ball appeal.

How do you know it was a live ball appeal? I doubt it was.

This mistake is hardly rare among coaches, fans, scorekeepers, but the umpires SHOULD be embarrassed.
That's a given. And, what they did NOT do on the field... file a protest.

Not possible, you just stated as much.

I'm not talking about jeopardy, I'm talking about a misinterpretation of a rule and the procedures and limitations the rule book places on the offended team to get remedy.

But that is the problem, there is no remedy. This is a lot like the local rules argument. You cannot apply procedure or effect to something that is not recognized or exists. IOW, you cannot apply protest procedures if the protests are not allowed.

You seem to have the situation reversed. If the rule had been applied correctly at the time, the visiting team would have found themselves down by one run in the late innings. Taking additional risks on low-odds plays is a valid choice and is not the same thing at all as "hitting the opponent until the referee tells you to stop."

I believe it is. You play every play like it is going to decide the game, but don't do anything stupid . IMO, the only strategy is having the right player in the BB. But that is me.

But, it was after the time when a protest could have been filed by rule, and that is what the team did... they came out on the field with their rule book and filed a protest. The umpires did not suddenly have an epiphany and correct their error... the team file a protest after it was too late to file a protest.

No, they did not. I think it has been established that other then recognizing they do not exist in WIAA softball, the word "protest" isn't part of the discussion.

The coach brought something to the crew's attention. They could have just as easily told the coach it was too late, but THEY chose to rule on and correct the error. And did so while in discussion with the coaches and ADs which I would have to assume are the administrators in this case. And, obviously, if the WIAA elected to take action, they could just as easily told the team the umpires' actions were not appropriate and for the teams to finish the game.

the UICs demand too much money! Again, agree, but the UIC needs to be on-site to handle protest properly.

UICs who demand payment beyond expenses for this type of play shouldn't be UICs. Not saying they shouldn't be compensated for their time, but if the amount makes the difference in whether they will perform in the position they accepted, their priority isn't the game.