The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   jeopardy (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/98560-jeopardy.html)

Cliffdweller Tue Oct 28, 2014 09:17pm

Players and coaches should know the situation. Umpire has egg on his face and must suck it up.
Agree, better not to verbalize unless batter runs to first when she isn't supposed to.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Oct 29, 2014 07:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 942499)
THE PLATE UMPIRE THOUGHT The batter was not entitled because of the runner at 1st.
Are you saying not to verbalize when that is the case? IOW, let the players figure it out for themselves?

I'm commenting on the mechanic, not the play, in saying the word "OUT" should not come out of the umpire's mouth unless there is a situation where the retired batter is heading toward 1st on a U3K when not entitled.

jmkupka Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:28am

Not to drive this into the ground...
The only time I've ever heard "Strike 3 batters out" has been on television show/commercial/movie umpires.

Is it possible that the order of events was:
U3K, batter runs, PU says, "batter out", F2 rolls ball? Then we have the PU giving bad game situation info, putting defense in jeopardy. And we can better debate whether it can be rectified.

If the order of events in the OP is precise, then yes, bad mechanics, you shouldn't say that, AND bad game situation info.

CecilOne Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 942575)
Not to drive this into the ground...
.

I already did. ;) :D

CecilOne Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 942575)
Is it possible that the order of events was:
U3K, batter runs, PU says, "batter out", F2 rolls ball? Then we have the PU giving bad game situation info, putting defense in jeopardy. And we can better debate whether it can be rectified.

OK, I will work on my presentation skills. That is what I though I described in the OP, although I now realize I should have included "batter runs" before "Plate umpire, not thinking 2 outs, says "batter out"".

MD Longhorn Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmkupka (Post 942575)
Not to drive this into the ground...
The only time I've ever heard "Strike 3 batters out" has been on television show/commercial/movie umpires.

Is it possible that the order of events was:
U3K, batter runs, PU says, "batter out", F2 rolls ball? Then we have the PU giving bad game situation info, putting defense in jeopardy. And we can better debate whether it can be rectified.

If the order of events in the OP is precise, then yes, bad mechanics, you shouldn't say that, AND bad game situation info.

Unfortunately, the rule (and the direction given in clinics) doesn't say anything about "giving bad game situation info". The rule about rectifying situations where we have put a team in jeopardy has to do only with incorrect rule applications or changed calls.

youngump Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 942585)
Unfortunately, the rule (and the direction given in clinics) doesn't say anything about "giving bad game situation info". The rule about rectifying situations where we have put a team in jeopardy has to do only with incorrect rule applications or changed calls.

But at some point you have to change the call. He called the batter out by mistake. If he never fixes it the batter is out and the inning is over.

But what you said a little further might be objectionable if I took it like this. Suppose the sequence was.
"Strike three."
Batter starts to run.
"Batters out."
Catcher tosses ball toward circle.
"#@%@, two outs, batter is NOT OUT"
Pitcher runs for the ball, barehands it toward first base and runner is safe on a bang bang play.

versus

"Strike three."
Batter starts to run.
"Batters out."
Catcher tosses ball toward circle.
Pitcher knowing the umpire was wrong runs for the ball, barehands it toward first base and runner is safe on a bang bang play.
Then umpire says, dang, runner was not out.

Whatever the right way to think about those two scenarios, the idea that the first is more clearly in favor of the defense seems absurd to me.

EsqUmp Thu Oct 30, 2014 05:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 942585)
Unfortunately, the rule (and the direction given in clinics) doesn't say anything about "giving bad game situation info". The rule about rectifying situations where we have put a team in jeopardy has to do only with incorrect rule applications or changed calls.

Doesn't this have the potential for a changed call? Isn't that one of the main points of this thread?

CecilOne Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 942625)
Doesn't this have the potential for a changed call? Isn't that one of the main points of this thread?

yes

IRISHMAFIA Fri Oct 31, 2014 09:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 942585)
Unfortunately, the rule (and the direction given in clinics) doesn't say anything about "giving bad game situation info". The rule about rectifying situations where we have put a team in jeopardy has to do only with incorrect rule applications or changed calls.

Or delayed calls

CecilOne Sat Nov 01, 2014 09:30am

I think this is the consensus.
Definite mistake by PU to call an out when BR is eligible to run.
Players (e.g., catcher) are responsible to know the rule and make the play anyway.
No need to apply the jeopardy rule, even if ITUJ the defense would have gotten the out with a throw to 1st.
BR remains safe at 1st.

AtlUmpSteve Sat Nov 01, 2014 06:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 942778)
I think this is the consensus.
Definite mistake by PU to call an out when BR is eligible to run.
Players (e.g., catcher) are responsible to know the rule and make the play anyway.
No need to apply the jeopardy rule, even if ITUJ the defense would have gotten the out with a throw to 1st.
BR remains safe at 1st.

That's my ruling.

Manny A Mon Nov 03, 2014 08:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 942778)
I think this is the consensus.
Definite mistake by PU to call an out when BR is eligible to run.
Players (e.g., catcher) are responsible to know the rule and make the play anyway.
No need to apply the jeopardy rule, even if ITUJ the defense would have gotten the out with a throw to 1st.
BR remains safe at 1st.

Agree.

Another point for consideration: Unless you're regularly working 12U rec ball, you will see that the overwhelming majority of catchers worth their salt will know to immediately come up with the throw after failing to catch the third strike with two outs. They won't be affected by a plate umpire erroneously calling the batter out. If one does, shame on her.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1