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

WIAA softball: Umpires' decision gives Madison La Follette controversial win over Middleton : Prep-zone

Opinions on how this played out?

This is my view.

This should have been treated like a protest. Assuming the game was played under protest from the time of the reversed ruling, then the game should have then been re-played from that point forward. If, OTOH, the game was NOT being played under protest, then, too bad, so sad. Merely adding the run 2 innings later was not correct, in my opinion.

It will be interesting to hear if the UIC for Wisconsin high school softball makes any comment.

"A phone call was even placed to Marcy Thurwachter, the WIAA assistant director in charge of softball, to affirm the umpires’ decision to end the game with the reversed call."

I think we talked about this once before. I think my view at the time was the same as yours, Dakota - the decision regarding whether the run scored or not was made (incorrectly) and if it was to be changed it needed to be protested at that moment.

However, I believe we were told (and my fuzzy memory does not recall by whom, or whether it was NFHS or ASA to be completely honest) that the run scored when it scored. The umpires did not disallow it because they believed the appeal occurred before the run scoring - the removal of the run from the board at that point was not a judgement call or a rule error, but rather a SCORING error - which can (and must) be corrected when discovered, even if 2 innings later.

I can truly see both sides of this.

Ok....the umpires screwed the pooch by not allowing the run when they should have.

The LaFollette coaches should have protested at that point, got the rulebook out, called the UIC, whatever, and get it fixed right then and there. Don't dig through the rulebook for an inning and a half to make sure you are right. At that point, in my opinion, it's too late.

I don't see this as a scoring error....for me, that's a run that scored that wasn't added to the teams total. This was a ruling that a run did not score and a misinterpretation of a rule...a protestable situation. Since the protest was not officially filed prior to the next pitch....the right to protest is gone.

It's a fascinating discussion that really requires someone more important than most of us to make a (seemingly) arbitrary decision.

I also see both sides of this.

If the umpires acknowledge that the runner crossed the plate before the appeal at second, the run scores BY RULE. Why would the umpire saying that the run does not score have any bearing at that point?

OTOH, it's a rule misinterpretation. Should be handled under protest procedures. BTW, the WIAA does not acknowledge protests.

IF the umpires were unsure, what should they have done at that moment in 5th inning?

Go find a rule book?
Call the boss?

Tough deal any way you go.

This isn't without precedence. The same thing happened in a Cleveland Indians game a few years ago, where a run that should have been allowed on a timing play wasn't, but was put up on the board a couple of innings later.

Here's the story...

I think that was the game that caused the situation to show up here for discussion, and I think the ruling from above (whoever that was) was the same.

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.

IMO, this was handled correctly. Well, obviously not by the umpires, but the only right result.

The runner legally crossed the plate, and the rules say the run scored. Even if the umpire says it didn't score, it did. Even if they didn't put it on the scoreboard; the run scored.

Sure, you can say they should protest, but what do you do when there are no protests? If something then followed which changed because of the failure to acknowledge the run scored, you could say it affected the game; and that is the sole reason to have to protest before the next pitch, and why a protest upheld is replayed from that time.

The umpires looked by fools; well, they deserve that. The opposing team wasn't disadvantaged; in fact, in other cases where the umpire tells the team the wrong thing (like the count, or how many outs there are), the answer is that the team needed to know the situation. Well, all three parties to this SHOULD have known the run scored. It did score.

Any other result is unfair and inappropriate, IMO.

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.

I agree that it was handled correctly.

What would have been really ugly is if Middleton had scored a run to "win" 2-1, and then it was discovered after everyone left the field that the score was really 2-2. The teams would have had to return to finish the game.

Or would the 2-1 score stand since the correction wasn't discovered until after the umpires left the field?

But why stop there? What if it had happened twice. And it switched the outcome of the game. Let's go a little further though. Let's say it happened twice. After both plays the home scorer asks and is told not to score the run. Visitors book ignored the umpire because she was further away and correctly noted the score. The next day both teams call in different scores to the league office.
Or what if it's really close and the defense believes that the umpire is making a judgment call that the runner scored after the tag when in reality he was kicking the rule. Then for the next couple innings the teams play based on what they believe to be the score. Then the score changes. Then the DC comes out to insist that the tag happened first and wants the PU to ask for help on the timing from the BU. It's hard to get help two innings later.

Neither side of this is any good, but if you're going to change the score later where do you draw the line?

My opinion, the umpires royally screwed this one over in multiple ways.

First, by not making the call correctly in the first place.

Second, my opinion is the rulebook was brought out too late to make the change. 10-2-3i note:

"If there is a question about a rule that was possibly misapplied, the team's coach or captain shall inform the umpire at the time of the play and before a pitch to the next batter of the team at bat, or before the first batter for the team that was on defense if the teams have changed positions, or before the umpires leave the field if the play in question was the last out."

To me this says the ruling must be made at the time of the issue. If the umpires disallowed the run, they had until the first pitch in the top of the 6th to make the change, or the result stayed as is.

This is different from some situations people have stated where the score was incorrect on the board, or in the book, because were clerical errors in the book (as covered in 10-2-3n. and this was a rules application ruling.

If the umpires never stated the run scored or did not score, then it could be considered a scorekeeping error, but the way I read the article, the ruling was made to disallow the run, then the ruling was changed.

The other question is if Wisconsin allows protests or not. Some states allow protests and others do not.

I would also argue that 10-2-3m could be applied because the umpires decision clearly put one of the teams in jeopardy. This is not the way the rule is intended to be used.

The issues of the rules misapplication should have been brought up immediately not an inning later (10-2-3i note). When the umpires did not allow the run at that point it was a misapplication and the rules do say when that should be addressed.

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?

And yet, in the MLB example that was given, the run did count. And MLB rules are the same as FED Softball rules when it comes to protests of rule misapplications. So there is some precedent here.

I do have a problem with states that say they won't accept protests. That's fine when it comes to regular season games. But for post-season playoffs at the highest levels (e.g., regional/sectional and state as a minimum), something should be in place.

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.

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

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

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.

I would stand by the ruling, based on the rule I stated, that the misapplication was not corrected at the moment of the error, it is not correctable.

This really depends on if the umpire stated "the run does not count", or if nothing was said and the scorer made the assumption the run does not score.

I have a big problem with using a MLB rule as the support for a NFHS softball ruling.

As for protests. The reason many states don't accept protests is simple. They simply do not have the ability to rule on protests in a timely manner to avoid impacting the entire post-season.

I will use Michigan for example.

We have Tuesday Pre-district games. If a game were to be protested in this game, they would have until Friday or Saturday to have the protest ruled upon, and if needed finish the game from the point of the protest.

What if the protest happen in a district semi-final Saturday morning. The state has 128 different districts being played, with the semi-finals played first, then the district finals.

Who would make a decision on a protest? Would it be up to the tourney manager (who is likely an AD, who often has no idea of the rules for softball)? Would it be the umpires? We don't have an UIC for HS events, so there is no neutral party at each site. Do they call into the state office for a ruling on a protest? What if documentation needs to be provided? Some of the schools barely have bathrooms around the fields, let alone the ability to provide information to the state office.

What happens if the semi-final is played, and Team A wins, but Team B protested something during the game. The district final is supposed to be played the same day, following the semi-finals. Do they postpone the district final? Do they play the district final which Team A is in. What if they play the final, but Team B's protest is upheld and the semi-final now needs to be replayed. Now you also may need to play the district final over because of the different outcome of the semi-final.

Allowing protests for misapplications of the rules sounds like a good idea, but in many cases it is not a practical endeavor because of the shear size of the event going on. In Michigan we have 128 districts almost all of which are played on Saturday after Memorial Day. Those each contain 3 games (SF, SF, Final), so we are talking about a lot of potential hassle if protests were allowed.

It can work much better in the event that it is a single site event. Events like ASA, NSA, or other single site tourney's can have protests rather easily. In those events you have a UIC on site that can make a ruling very quickly in the event of a protest, and as a result the entire event won't be delayed. That is not easily possible in high school softball statewide tourney's.

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.

Give me a break. Have you ever worked tournament play in Little League? Williamsport is the final arbiter of any and all protests during tourney games, even down to the district level. Their policy is, and has been for as long as I remember, that a manager may protest a rule misinterpretation, and if he/she isn't happy with the umpire's decision after the umpires get together to discuss, he/she may elevate it up to the tournament director, then the regional headquarters, and finally to LL HQ. What LL HQ says is final.

There are probably thousands of LL district games going on starting the last week in June in the US alone. Who knows how many others are taking place in the international regions. I would hazard a guess and say maybe five to ten times as many games. The chances are pretty good that W-port is dealing with hundreds of protests every day during district play. And I'm guessing that the staff at W-port that handles protests numbers maybe 10-15 people, tops.

When a rules misapplication protest is lodged, the game is stopped immediately, and not restarted until the protest is resolved. There is no "keep playing and we'll resolve the protest within 24 hours" like you see in MLB play. They get it taken care of right then and there so that it doesn't affect play later.

As a district UIC and tournament director in past years, I've had to deal with a few protests in our local LL. It usually takes anywhere from 10-20 minutes to get a protest all the way up to W-port and get an answer back. Once that answer was received, the game started right back up. The only impact was a slip in the daily schedule of games. No biggie.

So I laugh when someone says that a state cannot handle protests. Even in your "extreme" scenario of 128 districts, the probability of a more than ten protests being lodged at any one time for the state staff to deal with is infinitesimal. And if it really feels that it cannot handle it, then the state staff should delegate protest resolution to the next lower level. It can be easily organized well ahead of time, the right people contacted to let them know of their responsibilities, and be ready and announced before the first pitch of post-season play. It just takes a little initiative. JMO, but for states that say they can't do it, they are just shirking their duty.

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.

I am just going by what I've been told by the MHSAA as their reasoning for not accepting protests. Your use of Little League as the example is not comparable to most high school athletic associations. The simplest reason? Competency, as in LL has some and most high school associations lack what is needed in that regard.

Simply put, most high school athletic associations care about three things, football, basketball, and money. Anything beyond that, they try to find the cheapest way out. The proper way to handle this would be to have a UIC available at either the district or regional level (1 UIC should be able to handle protests from 4 districts simultaneously via telephone) in the case of protests. Heck if the association office were to be available they could handle all protests from across the state on district Saturday, but they aren't available.

Should protests be allowed in the post-season? They should, but I know in Michigan you won't see them anytime soon.

What I do find interesting is that some sports do allow protests within their rules without requiring state association adoption. Track and Field is a perfect example, and swimming files suit with basically the same rules.

Track and Field uses the following procedure. First, the offended team appeals the decision to the meet referee. The meet referee rules on the appeal. If the meet referee's decision is not made to the satisfaction of the offended team, the jury of appeals is brought in for a final say on the matter. The referee (not the offended team) presents the facts of the situation to the jury of appeals, which then votes on the appeal. They can either uphold or deny the appeal.

I have had the privilege of and have been the cause of a jury of appeals in track and field meets. I made a mistake at a regional meet many years ago that ended up going to the jury of appeals. The coach didn't like the ruling, but the correct rule was enforced after my mistake. I also had the chance to serve on the jury of appeals at a track state meet several years ago. We got together and made the decision to deny the appeal.

If state associations could get together and have a similar jury of appeals at the state level, they could likely have a easy method to handle protests. You would need 5 people at the state association office on game day (district and regionals) or on site (all finals are played at the same place). The district crews would need a designated crew chief that would call the appeal into the state office for a ruling by the jury of appeals.

One caveat about the jury of appeals in Michigan. At the state meet level the jury of appeals "fee" is $100 to appeal because it slows down the meet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which statement are you refering to?

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

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

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?

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.]

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.

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.

"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 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.

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.

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?

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.


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

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.

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.

Exactly.

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.
That's a given. And, what they did NOT do on the field... file a protest.
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.
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."
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.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! :DAgain, agree, but the UIC needs to be on-site to handle protest properly.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

Not possible, you just stated as much.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

So in conclusion,

We all agree the umpires kicked the call initially by not counting the run when it should have been counted.

We seem to have a disagreement about the change being made when it is was changed based on the timing of when the misapplication of the rule was questioned.

I have already stated my opinion on this matter, and my opinion has not changed on bit.