Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Sign in to follow this  
Jimurray

Missing outfielder

Recommended Posts

Rich Marazzi has an interesting rule quiz on the ABUA website involving what he seems to depict as actual MLB plays. One event was the negation of a leadoff HR when it was pointed out that the defense was missing one outfielder at the start of the inning. I know that it’s a do-over in OBR but I’ve always assumed any play would count in FED if you started the inning with 8. But Rich says the HR wouldn’t count in FED because the ball was dead at TOP because the ninth player didn’t have one foot in fair territory. Sounds valid. 

Edited by Jimurray
added red wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Rich Marazzi has an interesting rule quiz on the ABUA website involving actual MLB plays. One event was the negation of a leadoff HR when it was pointed out that the defense was missing one outfielder at the start of the inning. I know that it’s a do-over in OBR but I’ve always assumed any play would count in FED if you started the inning with 8. But Rich says the HR wouldn’t count in FED because the ball was dead at TOP because the ninth player didn’t have one foot in fair territory. Sounds valid. 
Depends:
A team is allowed to start an inning with only 8 players; so just having 8 players on the field would in itself not negate the play. It would depend on how many players were listed on the lineup card with the PU.
If 9 players are in the game on the lineup card and only 8 are on the field, the PU should not be putting the ball in play.
It's also a bit of incorrect semantics to say the HR was negated. The correct way to describe the situation would be to say that it was a "no-pitch" because the ball becomes dead at the TOP because the requirements for a legal pitch had not been met.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2018 at 8:20 AM, Mike D said:

Depends:
A team is allowed to start an inning with only 8 players; so just having 8 players on the field would in itself not negate the play. It would depend on how many players were listed on the lineup card with the PU.
If 9 players are in the game on the lineup card and only 8 are on the field, the PU should not be putting the ball in play.
It's also a bit of incorrect semantics to say the HR was negated. The correct way to describe the situation would be to say that it was a "no-pitch" because the ball becomes dead at the TOP because the requirements for a legal pitch had not been met.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

The negated HR was supposedly in an MLB game. Yes, while we should not put the ball in play it does happen. Are you calling it an illegal pitch in FED and bringing the HR hitter back to the plate with a ball added to the count?

Edited by Jimurray
added red wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jimurray, I noticed that you posted this topic on the ABUA umpire site also. You were asked if this play actually happened and you replied you did not know. I do not know either. I searched using lots of search terms and could not find even one newspaper account of the play or mention of any kind anywhere.

I did find, however, the same type of play in the BRD (2016 edition) and in the Wendelstedt manual (2013 edition). Neither of these case plays identified a team or any particular player but still pretty much matched the Rich Marazzi play in the quiz. Here’s the case play from the WRIM (2013 edition, p. 251):

No one on, no outs, no count. The leadoff batter of the inning hits the first pitch out of the ballpark for a home run. As the BR is rounding third base the right fielder comes sprinting out of his dugout. He had been in the restroom between innings and was not on the field for the start of the inning. Ruling:  The entire play is nullified since there were not nine defensive players on the field when the ball was put in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, I noticed that you posted this topic on the ABUA umpire site also. You were asked if this play actually happened and you replied you did not know. I do not know either. I searched using lots of search terms and could not find even one newspaper account of the play or mention of any kind anywhere.

I did find, however, the same type of play in the BRD (2016 edition) and in the Wendelstedt manual (2013 edition). Neither of these case plays identified a team or any particular player but still pretty much matched the Rich Marazzi play in the quiz. Here’s the case play from the WRIM (2013 edition, p. 251):

No one on, no outs, no count. The leadoff batter of the inning hits the first pitch out of the ballpark for a home run. As the BR is rounding third base the right fielder comes sprinting out of his dugout. He had been in the restroom between innings and was not on the field for the start of the inning. Ruling:  The entire play is nullified since there were not nine defensive players on the field when the ball was put in play.

Marazzi added actual player and manager names to the event and created the impression in my mind that it happened in an MLB game but I found no play involving the HR hitter, leading off the fifth inning and the right fielder, because of his illness, being subbed for when the cited teams played in the past. But if the RF wasn't subbed for there would be no game record that anything happened. You would expect an outcry that would have made it into newspaper though and that didn't happen. 

Earlier BRDs have an the current ruling of negating any play but also an earlier ruling from Roder that would allow the play to stand unless the defense gained an advantage. It appears the Roder ruling was adopted by the NCAA but not currently in OBR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBR rule 5.02 (old rule 4.03) does not specify a penalty—nor did it in 2010--for not having every fielder on fair territory when the ball is made live. Back in 2010 Jaksa/Roder suggested penalization for the infraction and indicated that their suggestions were not officially adopted by putting the text in italics. Here’s what the J/R said about the play in this thread (2010 edition, p. 181):

“If any fielder (other than the catcher) is not in fair territory when the ball is put in play by the plate umpire…and a pitch is delivered, the resulting action stands unless the defense gains an advantage attributable to the fielder’s illegal positioning. The umpire will make any ruling he feels necessary to nullify the advantage gained by the defense…”

And then they give an example on page 182:  Batter hits a home run; play stands.

But just three years later the 2013 Wendelstedt manual states what is now listed as the official interpretation (as found in the most recent BRD):  “When a fielder is not in fair territory:  PENALTY:  Any play is nullified.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

OBR rule 5.02 (old rule 4.03) does not specify a penalty—nor did it in 2010--for not having every fielder on fair territory when the ball is made live. Back in 2010 Jaksa/Roder suggested penalization for the infraction and indicated that their suggestions were not officially adopted by putting the text in italics. Here’s what the J/R said about the play in this thread (2010 edition, p. 181):

“If any fielder (other than the catcher) is not in fair territory when the ball is put in play by the plate umpire…and a pitch is delivered, the resulting action stands unless the defense gains an advantage attributable to the fielder’s illegal positioning. The umpire will make any ruling he feels necessary to nullify the advantage gained by the defense…”

And then they give an example on page 182:  Batter hits a home run; play stands.

But just three years later the 2013 Wendelstedt manual states what is now listed as the official interpretation (as found in the most recent BRD):  “When a fielder is not in fair territory:  PENALTY:  Any play is nullified.”

In earlier BRDs Carl gave you the choice to use Dreary/Evans nullification or J-Rs benefit interp. Does your most current BRD mention the J-R interp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also assume it's never ratified by a pitch to a following batter - you could conceivably nullify an entire inning, if no one noticed until the second or third batter?

A scenario I can see is bottom of ninth with home team behind, defensive team down to only nine players suffers an injury/illness, and attempts to take field with only eight players hoping no one notices the forfeit.  I'm suspecting this is the reason for the interpretation to nullify any play.  You can't have a game-ending strikeout stand, just because fielding eight players gave the defense no advantage.  Defense still needs to prove they can field nine players.   Negating a game ending/tying home run is immaterial in this same scenario, except to the batter's stats, because the home team wins regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jimurray, no, there is no mention of a Jaksa/Roder interpretation on this question in the 2016 BRD (section 255, p. 164). In addition, there is no mention of an interpretation from D(r)eary/Evans (Barney Deary--but I like your version better).

Mr. beerguy55, there is an official interpretation for OBR that addresses your hypothetical:

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  Umpires discover a fielder was in foul territory during play:  (1) If they can determine when the fielder left fair territory, they nullify all pitches and plays after that time. (2) If they cannot make that determination, they shall nullify just the pitch or the play occurring immediately before the discovery that he was not in fair territory. (WRIM—section 5.1.2, p. 62)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×