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

[MD Longhorn]

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

Opinions on how this played out?

[Dakota]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

"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.

[Andy]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[DRJ1960]

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.

[BretMan]

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...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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.

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.

[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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[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.

[Manny A]

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?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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?

[chapmaja]

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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.