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

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by 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.

MLB is not a precedent for Fed fastpitch. Irrelevant. Completely different game played by completely different people. And, among all of this, they have professional (more or less) scorekeepers in MLB.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

MLB is not a precedent for Fed fastpitch. Irrelevant. Completely different game played by completely different people. And, among all of this, they have professional (more or less) scorekeepers in MLB.

For most intents and purposes, I agree. But cite the completely different rule or interpretation out of the FED Fastpitch rule book or case book that would allow for a completely different ruling than what happened in the MLB case. I'm pretty certain you won't find one.

That's my point. You base your argument on when a proper protest should have been lodged by the coach when the run was initially disallowed. The protest rule in FED Fastpitch is virtually identical with that of the MLB. And in the MLB game, there was no protest lodged when the run was disallowed. That didn't matter.

And in the MLB game, it wasn't a professional scorekeeper who was involved in the situation. From the article that was previously linked:

The bizarre sequence started with Baltimore leading 2-1 in the top of the third. Nick Markakis was on third base and Miguel Tejada on first with one out when Ramon Hernandez hit a line drive to center field.

Indians outfielder Grady Sizemore made a diving catch. Markakis tagged up, headed for home and appeared to cross the plate before Tejada doubled off first. Plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved off the run.

Orioles bench coach Tom Trebelhorn disputed Hudson's call before the start of the fourth, and Hudson then conferred with [crew chief Ed] Montague and the other umpires.

"We kicked it around and now I'm having a brain cramp on it," Montague said. "So I sent Bill (umpire Bill Miller) in, I said 'You know what, cause we're debating, you go in. Lets make it 100 percent sure."'

Miller checked the rule and said the run should have counted. Montague was vague about why it took until the sixth to make the change, saying "it kind of went on" with the umpires conferring with the managers.

"It was my screw up and we can't go off of umpire's error," he said. "What's right is right. We have to score the run."

No involvement of a scorekeeper here. The PU waved off the run, then the crew chief added it three innings later despite no protest being lodged.

Bottom line: This bizarre scenario played out twice, and both times the results were the same. Yes, completely different sports, but under the same fundamental rules.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Also ... to Dakota...

If you, TPTB, are not allowing the "protest" 2 innings later to fix the score because it was not made in time, then how can you allow the "protest" after the game to reverse the score change that the umpires made to fix that score - if THAT change was not protested at the proper time, but rather after the game was over?

If adding the run was wrong - yet was not protested at the moment they put the run back on... doesn't your same "deny the untimely 'protest'" logic not allow you to fix it at this point?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Also ... to Dakota...

If you, TPTB, are not allowing the "protest" 2 innings later to fix the score because it was not made in time, then how can you allow the "protest" after the game to reverse the score change that the umpires made to fix that score - if THAT change was not protested at the proper time, but rather after the game was over?

If adding the run was wrong - yet was not protested at the moment they put the run back on... doesn't your same "deny the untimely 'protest'" logic not allow you to fix it at this point?

Maybe I wasn't stating my position clearly, (and I am NOT in the category of "TPTB") but the opportunity to lodge the protest is in the inning the wrong rule was applied. I was arguing that the time had passed and the after the fact correction should not have been allowed. Where did you get from what I posted that I would have recognized a protest later in the game? I was saying the opposite.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Maybe I wasn't stating my position clearly, (and I am NOT in the category of "TPTB") but the opportunity to lodge the protest is in the inning the wrong rule was applied. I was arguing that the time had passed and the after the fact correction should not have been allowed. Where did you get from what I posted that I would have recognized a protest later in the game? I was saying the opposite.

You're missing my point.

You feel the run should not have been put on the board because the "protest" was not done at the right time. Fine. Shouldn't have been done.

But the umpires did it anyway. So, in your opinion, they were wrong to do so.

However, now the shoe's on the other foot. The OTHER team did not "protest" the incorrect adding of the run to the score until after the game. So, for consistency's sake - you cannot allow THAT protest after the fact either - meaning the run must stand.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're missing my point.

You feel the run should not have been put on the board because the "protest" was not done at the right time. Fine. Shouldn't have been done.

But the umpires did it anyway. So, in your opinion, they were wrong to do so.

However, now the shoe's on the other foot. The OTHER team did not "protest" the incorrect adding of the run to the score until after the game. So, for consistency's sake - you cannot allow THAT protest after the fact either - meaning the run must stand.

OK, I see your point now. But, I'm not arguing for or against who won the game. I'm arguing against what the umpires did in the middle of the 7th inning, and the following ruling (IIRC) by the state that the umpires' ruling was correct.

The state did not back the final score on the basis of the team offended by the 7th inning ruling did not file a protest. That backed it on the basis that adding the run to correct a misapplication of a rule in the 5th inning (or whenever... I don't remember the exact inning) 2 innings later was correct. I am arguing, no, it was not correct. It was a protest situation, and the state does not allow protests, therefore there was no remedy allowed. And, even if the state did allow protests, the protest was filed too late. Double jeopardy.

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...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.

It was a joke, Mike!

Anyway, I've stated my views on this. No need to keep re-stating it.

I do think we agree that there really is no excuse for not having at least an on-site protest handling process for post season games.

[MD Longhorn]

I think TPTB in various organizations should put in their rules how to handle this. I truly can see, and justify, both sides of the argument.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I do think we agree that there really is no excuse for not having at least an on-site protest handling process for post season games.

Our post season high school games are played at a hundred different sites spread out across the entire state. I think that it becomes a problem with logistics to have a protest handling process set up to handle that many games spread out over that large of a geographic area.

Maybe you could have this for the semifinals and finals, which are are played at one site (though there are five different divisions involved).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Our post season high school games are played at a hundred different sites spread out across the entire state. I think that it becomes a problem with logistics to have a protest handling process set up to handle that many games spread out over that large of a geographic area.

Maybe you could have this for the semifinals and finals, which are are played at one site (though there are five different divisions involved).

As was stated earlier in this thread... Little League manages an immediate protest chain country-wide and it works very efficiently. Geography is not an issue at all with that newfangled invention called a cell phone.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

As was stated earlier in this thread... Little League manages an immediate protest chain country-wide and it works very efficiently. Geography is not an issue at all with that newfangled invention called a cell phone.

+1,000,000. It's called organizing your chain of command. It starts with the District Administrator and goes up from there.