UEFL Game Ending Appeal on a Force Play

[scrounge]

So...what brand of potato did they use to shoot that video?

[BrianC14]

11 minutes ago, scrounge said:

So...what brand of potato did they use to shoot that video?

The kind of potatoes that become french fries, and this video was being recorded while the fries were in the fryer.  

 

[Lindsay]

We have a logical conundrum: video is prohibited, but video evidence is all that would suggest a base touch (weak as it may be)...but GHSA made it clear that they overturned the call as a matter of judgment, not of rule interpretation or violation.

Furthermore, it is NFHS Rule 10-1-5 that states, "The use of videotape or equipment by game officials for the purpose of making calls or rendering decisions is prohibited," and Rule 4-5 that states, "It is optional on the part of a state association as to whether protests are permitted. When allowed, protests are permitted regarding rules one through nine only."

Again, such use of equipment (Rule 10-1-5) is not subject to protest, assuming of course, that GHSA allows protests.

But regardless of the use of technology (cell phone or otherwise), what blows the entire case out of the water is the Board of Trustees president stating, on the record—boasting even—that his group has "set a precedent" in overturning a judgment call that he described as "wrong" or a "bad call."

[BrianC14]

"But regardless of the use of technology (cell phone or otherwise), what blows the entire case out of the water is the Board of Trustees president stating, on the record—boasting even—that his group has "set a precedent" in overturning a judgment call that he described as "wrong" or a "bad call."

-Gil

And in boasting about this, he violated GHSA's own bylaws which prohibit protests of judgment calls.  

And then started up the bus and rolled over the umpires. 

[VolUmp]

I asked this earlier and no one answered. Why/how could U2 be looking at the touch of 3B when he had to watch R1 coming from 1B.

I think hearing that "two umpires saw it" in a bases loaded situation MAKES the umpires' case sound fishy.

i hate everything about this sitch, but I think a call was blown unnecessarily. U3 had absolutely nothing else to do but watch for the touch.

[Sut'n Blue]

Still very confused.

I've been following this but have yet to see where anyone with GHSA has specifically said they were overturning the call on the field that the runner didn't touch third - which seems to be the only judgment call on the table. Is it possible they're referring to something else? Is it possible they say they are overturning a judgment call which is actually a rule issue and not a judgment call?

 

 

[BrianC14]

2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I asked this earlier and no one answered. Why/how could U2 be looking at the touch of 3B when he had to watch R1 coming from 1B.

I think hearing that "two umpires saw it" in a bases loaded situation MAKES the umpires' case sound fishy.

i hate everything about this sitch, but I think a call was blown unnecessarily. U3 had absolutely nothing else to do but watch for the touch.

Well, if it were me, I would be turning my head back and forth, much like in 2-man crew mechanics.   

Even if it's "not my job" I will steal a look at other bases.  Maybe the guy from first was running on pitch (in fact, so was the runner from 3rd, he's in the video 1/2 to 2/3 of the way home when the pitch arrives).    So R1 gets a jump, too.   Maybe R2 was clueless about doing so, and took his sweet time.

There's no sense in looking for a "fishy" conspiracy here.  If that exists, the fishy smell is likely emanating from the offices of the Board of Trustees.

[BrianC14]

2 hours ago, Sut'n Blue said:

Still very confused.

I've been following this but have yet to see where anyone with GHSA has specifically said they were overturning the call on the field that the runner didn't touch third - which seems to be the only judgment call on the table. Is it possible they're referring to something else? Is it possible they say they are overturning a judgment call which is actually a rule issue and not a judgment call?

 

The Board President was quoted as saying that it was a "bad call" and "the wrong call".   Imagine the hubris that took.

[Jimurray]

13 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

Well, if it were me, I would be turning my head back and forth, much like in 2-man crew mechanics.   

Even if it's "not my job" I will steal a look at other bases.  Maybe the guy from first was running on pitch (in fact, so was the runner from 3rd, he's in the video 1/2 to 2/3 of the way home when the pitch arrives).    So R1 gets a jump, too.   Maybe R2 was clueless about doing so, and took his sweet time.

There's no sense in looking for a "fishy" conspiracy here.  If that exists, the fishy smell is likely emanating from the offices of the Board of Trustees.

I'm not supporting the boards actions but it is concerning that 4 umpires and two other persons conferenced on the field for 20 minutes and made a phone call while conferencing.

[BrianC14]

13 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I'm not supporting the boards actions but it is concerning that 4 umpires and two other persons conferenced on the field for 20 minutes and made a phone call while conferencing.

Yeah, would still like to hear who those two others were, and who they were calling.   I can understand conferencing on getting the application of the rule correct, but 20 minutes.... yikes.

[Sut'n Blue]

22 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

The Board President was quoted as saying that it was a "bad call" and "the wrong call".   Imagine the hubris that took.

OK, the board president said "it" was a bad call. That doesn't tell us what "it" is.  

[BrianC14]

4 hours ago, Sut'n Blue said:

OK, the board president said "it" was a bad call. That doesn't tell us what "it" is.  

He was referring to the issue of R2 missing 3B, and the crew applying the rules to disallow the run.

[Sut'n Blue]

"In an exclusive interview with 11Alive, Johns Creek Athletic Director Jason Holcombe said his school's argument was the umpires' use of technology before making a ruling was a violation of the officiating handbook. 

"Our argument was that the mechanics being used in the use of technology to make a questionable call that was determined to say that the runner at second did not touch third base..." Holcombe said."

This indicates that the basis of the appeal was not whether the kid touched third. It looks like the appeal was based on the umpires using cell phones as an aid before deciding to call the runner out. If the umpires used phones to view video to help them make the call, they should not have done so. But, the only information I can find says they used phones to confer. Exactly who they were conferring with and what they were conferring about is a mystery. Perhaps they called someone(s) to check the rule about which runners had to advance.

According to this article GHSA overturned the call on the field because the umpires used technology - not because GHSA determined the runner had touched third.

http://www.11alive.com/sports/high-school/johns-creek-successful-appeal-to-ghsa-focused-on-officals-use-of-cell-phones/441980915

[johnnyg08]

I guarantee you that if necessary there would be a line of scrubs hopping the picket lines to work this game for the next game fee. Even if a certain number of people refuse to work, somebody will always take the game fee. Some brotherhood eh? 

[White47]

24 minutes ago, Sut'n Blue said:

"In an exclusive interview with 11Alive, Johns Creek Athletic Director Jason Holcombe said his school's argument was the umpires' use of technology before making a ruling was a violation of the officiating handbook. 

"Our argument was that the mechanics being used in the use of technology to make a questionable call that was determined to say that the runner at second did not touch third base..." Holcombe said."

This indicates that the basis of the appeal was not whether the kid touched third. It looks like the appeal was based on the umpires using cell phones as an aid before deciding to call the runner out. If the umpires used phones to view video to help them make the call, they should not have done so. But, the only information I can find says they used phones to confer. Exactly who they were conferring with and what they were conferring about is a mystery. Perhaps they called someone(s) to check the rule about which runners had to advance.

According to this article GHSA overturned the call on the field because the umpires used technology - not because GHSA determined the runner had touched third.

http://www.11alive.com/sports/high-school/johns-creek-successful-appeal-to-ghsa-focused-on-officals-use-of-cell-phones/441980915

If they used cell phone video then this is 100% on them, but I don't feel that Umpires that would be selected to work that level of a game would make such a boneheaded move. Plus the video quality suck, and i don't see how they could determine one way or the other on the touch.  Personally, I think if they wheres a rule question, they should have looked it up in a rule book instead of calling, but not sure that should be a reason to overturn the call, especially since they got it right. I also don't understand how this is a 20 min conference, but anyway...Lesson for all in this i guess is, know your rule book.  

 

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, White47 said:

If they used cell phone video then this is 100% on them, but I don't feel that Umpires that would be selected to work that level of a game would make such a boneheaded move. Plus the video quality suck, and i don't see how they could determine one way or the other on the touch.  Personally, I think if they wheres a rule question, they should have looked it up in a rule book instead of calling, but not sure that should be a reason to overturn the call, especially since they got it right. I also don't understand how this is a 20 min conference, but anyway...Lesson for all in this i guess is, know your rule book.  

 

The problem is that the rule is worded similar to OBR except for adding R1 and R2:

"2. When the winning run is scored in the last half inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases loaded which forces the runner on third base to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game over until all runners have advanced to the next base."

So if you're aware of the OBR mechanic of requesting runners to advance you might not know what FED requires unless you review the casebook. Or have been trained specifically for FED.

[Sut'n Blue]

The 2014 BRD addresses the difference between OBR and Fed at 33. It looks like Carl saw this one coming.

[blue23ll]

If the 'use of technology' is a violation of GSHA policy, then discipline the officials. In no way should the outcome of the game be reversed because of a violation of policy. Would you change the outcome of a game because an official wasn't wearing the correct patch or hat?

[BrianC14]

3 hours ago, White47 said:

If they used cell phone video then this is 100% on them, but I don't feel that Umpires that would be selected to work that level of a game would make such a boneheaded move. Plus the video quality suck, and i don't see how they could determine one way or the other on the touch.  Personally, I think if they wheres a rule question, they should have looked it up in a rule book instead of calling, but not sure that should be a reason to overturn the call, especially since they got it right. I also don't understand how this is a 20 min conference, but anyway...Lesson for all in this i guess is, know your rule book.  

 

I don't think that they used "the cell phone video" to judge the call, I've read reports where they used "a" cell phone to place a call to someone.... their UIC, maybe?   My understanding of it was that the call was made to ensure they had the correct application of the rules.   There are several reports that both U3 and U2 confirmed the miss of 3B by R2.   

[BrianC14]

White acknowledged that overturning a judgment call sets an uneasy precedent. It’s not unusual for the GHSA to alter results based on the failure of officials to apply rules correctly. But in this case, the board of trustees effectively changed the outcome of a game based on the belief that umpires misjudged whether the runner touched third.

“If it’s the second inning of a baseball game or second quarter of a football game, you’ve got plenty of time to overcome a bad call,’’ White said. ‘’This situation is a different. It’s a semifinal state playoff game in baseball, and it’s the end of the game. I just see that differently. That had lot to do with swaying my opinion.”

- from the Atlanta Journal Constitution article

 

[BrianC14]

By the way, they pushed Game 3 to 1:00 Friday.   

[jkumpire]

On a totally different issue with this whole problem; 

1. I would bet you dollars to donuts that the crew was not sure of the rule because they work other levels of baseball where its only the Batter and R3 that matter in this case. So they had to call someone to see if the appeal was legal, which leads me to point two. 

2. As far as I know this addition to 9-1-1 is the wrong place to have this note!!!! This is the only rule or interpretation in Rule 9 that I know of that applies to the way the game is played or the outcome of a contest. the rest of the rule is only about stats for the game. If FED wants this rule/interpretation to be applied in a proper manner according to them (i.e. all runners forced to advanced must touch the base they are forced to advance to), then it needs to be moved to rule 7 under appeals, or rule 8-2 or 8-4 (when the batter or runner is out). Rule nine is the wrong place for it. 

If this interpretation is in a different part of the rule book or case book, please let us know, and if there are other interpretations in rule 9 that affect how the game is played on the field please let us know.

 

 

 

[mw94]

If this article is correct?  It appears the protest  was allowed because the Umpires used a cell phone to call for a rules interpretation

" GHSA has not responded to 11Alive's request for comment on the use of cell phones to make a decision other than say that "they were not used to determine whether the runner had touched the third base bag."

So the call was correct! But  by getting consultation via phone  GHSA overturns the call?? 

Bottom line, in Georgia go get your rulebook out of the car instead of making a call to your UIC or Rules Interperter 

 

[ALStripes17]

On a totally different issue with this whole problem; 
1. I would bet you dollars to donuts that the crew was not sure of the rule because they work other levels of baseball where its only the Batter and R3 that matter in this case. So they had to call someone to see if the appeal was legal, which leads me to point two. 
2. As far as I know this addition to 9-1-1 is the wrong place to have this note!!!! This is the only rule or interpretation in Rule 9 that I know of that applies to the way the game is played or the outcome of a contest. the rest of the rule is only about stats for the game. If FED wants this rule/interpretation to be applied in a proper manner according to them (i.e. all runners forced to advanced must touch the base they are forced to advance to), then it needs to be moved to rule 7 under appeals, or rule 8-2 or 8-4 (when the batter or runner is out). Rule nine is the wrong place for it. 
If this interpretation is in a different part of the rule book or case book, please let us know, and if there are other interpretations in rule 9 that affect how the game is played on the field please let us know.
 
 
 

The note for how a team legally scores (or doesn't score) shouldn't be in the same area as the rule that says how a team legally scores?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

The note for how a team legally scores (or doesn't score) shouldn't be in the same area as the rule that says how a team legally scores?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

But what to do about it is not in the rule. With similar wording about "not declaring the game over" only OBR states in the rule what to do about it. FED as far as I know only has a 2012 Interp:

"SITUATION 18: In the bottom of the eighth inning, the score is tied, with the bases loaded and two outs. B6 draws a walk and runs and touches first base. B1 trots in from third and touches home plate. B2, however, begins celebrating and never touches third base. RULING: All runners must legally touch the next base in advancing. If the defense legally appeals while at least one umpire is still on the field of play, B2 is declared out for the third out. Since this out would be a “force” out, no runs would score and the game would continue into the ninth inning. (8-2-1, 8-2-6j, 9-1-1a and d)"

NCAA used to be like FED until this year when they changed to the OBR wording but without adding the instruction to the umpire about what to do.

Aside, I advise anyone I'm training to tear out the scoring chapter of their rulebooks except for the first page of FED chapter 9.