UmpJM

Dragon, That is what I had guessed. While I would certainly agree that the F1's ill-fated attempt to retire R3 was an "appeal", and that he "erred" in his attempt, by official interpretation, the defense has not lost it's right to make a subsequent appeal once the ball is put back in play. Since the action you cite was part of the "continuous action" of the play during which the baserunning infraction occured, it does not negate the defense's opportunity to make a subsequent "post continuous action" appeal. JM

Dragon, Clarification on your #1 answer. You suggest that the defense has lost its right to appeal because there was "a following pitch or play" if I'm reading you right. What was it? JM

ncump, In my area (Chicago suburbs) that is fairly standard for Saturday games & Spring Break week, very unusual for regular weekday games. JM

Fun? I had fun when I wore this... JM

Like TT, I think I have given my official position on this as well - rather than just playing "devil's advocate". But I don't think there is an "official position" on this - and, were one created, I could imagine it being the one he has adopted as easily as the one I have. In regard to what Evans teaches, I can attest that he teaches as TT suggests - at the end of the play, enforce the CI and see if the OM requests his option. If he does, give it to him. As to all the "complicating factors" on Michael's sitch, they weren't covered at the Desert Classic I attended - at least not in the context of a "CI play, and nobody thought to ask. So, I too am applying what I know of the rules to come up with what I think the proper ruling in this sitch would be. I have been advised by those who are better at this than I that, when things get "weird" like this, slow down and take things in the order they happened. So, in this play (I'm the PU)... The first thing I've got is the CI. I point and say, "That's interference". This should be the BU's catch/no catch, so I glance to see that he's got it as I start moving towards the 3B dugout to get an angle to lineup the R3 and the catch. When the catch is resolved, I go back to an area behind the point of the plate to await any pending play at the plate. As the throw comes in, I adjust my angle to make the call at the plate. As the ball goes by, I let the ball "turn" me and, when I see it go out of play, I call "Time!" Up to this point, I would guess TT & I would have pretty much done things the same. At this point, I think I would award the R2 home if he hadn't already crossed. To me, that's part of the "play" that the CI occurred on. I'm then going to ask the OM if he wants the result of the play or the CI penalty - I'll answer his (reasonable) questions as concisely as I'm able and try not to get myself in trouble. When he picks the result of the play, I'm going to "announce" that he has done so. When the defense appeals, I'm going to call the R3 out on his failure to retouch and announce that the last two runs are nullified. I don't believe that an interim "enforcement" of the CI would relieve the R3 of his liability on the appeal, but I do think the if the OM's original choice were the penalty rather than the play, it would. Perhaps I'm wrong. Regardless, I think it's been a good discussion. And, I believe we're at least ALL in agreement that the OM doesn't get to change his mind. JM

TT, If the OM chooses "the result of the play", that's exactly what he gets. His R3 is still liable because his choice "nullified" the CI penalty and he lost his opportunity to relieve his liability once the R2 scored behind him. He doesn't get to have it "both ways". JM

Michael & TT, Once the "following runner" (R2 in this sitch) scored behind the R3, the R3 has "forevermore" lost the opportunity to correct his failure to retouch 3B on the catch, and remains liable to an appeal despite "last time by" and the fact he's standing on the base. See 7.10( AR1. The only thing that can "save" him from the appeal is if the OC chooses the penalty rather than the play. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the DM tried to argue that the R3 should be out even in this case - because of 7.10( AR1. Brian, While the IHSA has also chosen not to entertain protests in HS games, those aren't the only games I do. JM

TT, I disagree. Even if one does as you suggest (enforce the penalty 1st - which may very well be the "best" thing to do), the R3 in this sitch is still liable to be called out on a properly constituted appeal by the defense. If I'm the DM in this sitch and you deny my appeal (I'm assuming, as in the original sitch, that you saw the R3 leave early on the catch) I will protest and my protest will be upheld. JM

Brian, Of course it's not actually going to be your fault - that's why I put in the part about "In the coach's mind...". Now, if you don't think the coach is going to try to make it your fault, you're either working in one of the areas where they're piloting the "mandatory pre-game Prozac for coaches" program or you need to work more games. And you've identified one of the "land mines" I see in this sitch. As the PU, you've got the call on the R3's retouch of 3B - so you already know that the R3 is liable to a proper appeal. Though, as you say, you don't yet know whether the defense will attempt the appeal. If you (even "innocently") say anything that tips off either team that there is an appeal opportunity pending, you will have "screwed up" IMHO, and one of the coaches is going to have a legitimate "beef" with you. Similarly, in explaining the "result of the play" option to the OC, you might say something about "...2 runs will score and the batter will be out...". Then, after the appeal, when you've nullified the 2 runs, the OC is going to claim "You can't do that! You just told me I'd get those 2 runs if I took the play!" Of course, in reality, you can, and that may not be exactly what you said; and it's certainly not what you meant. Nonetheless, it's not going to be a pleasant conversation, and maybe you could have phrased things differently in a way that helps defuse the situation rather than exacerbating it. JM

Brian, As I said, I'm not going to allow him to change his "choice" at this point either. That's exactly my point. After the appeal, the OC is going to go from "reasonably pleased" to "apoplectic" - in a New York minute. It's going to happen so fast, it's going to make your head spin. And, believe it or not, it's all going to be your fault. Because, in the coach's mind, you didn't explain his options to him properly. Depending on what you did or didn't say in the earlier conversation when you explained his options, he may or may not have a point. That's all. JM

Brian, If you go to the "All Amateur Codes" part of the appendix (in my copy, this comes immediately after the NAIA part of the appendix), you will see that #3 says: In the BRD, Carl Childress (note 261-291) suggests, again for amateur play , I'll drop my little "role playing" attempt since it doesn't really seem to be "taking". Personally, I thought Michael's question/sitch was a great one. I've certainly never seen it happen in a game and I had never even considered such a sitch hypothetically. For the record, I concur with the majority who basically said the OM already had his choice, he doesn't get to change it after the defense appeals. This is supported by the MLBUM: To me, this sitch illuminates the principle that there is a lot more to umpiring than knowing the rules and applying them properly to the situation at hand. As I imagined this playing out in my head, it dawned on me that there are a lot of "land mines" in this sitch that the umpire probably wants to avoid. First, the question raised by a couple of posters of whether or not to offer the option to the coach. Personally, if there is a (meaningful) option for the offense, I'm going to follow the advice of messers. Roder, Childress & Bible and offer it to the coach. I don't think it would be wrong/improper to not offer it, but I think that approach would more likely lead to a $hitstorm in an amateur game. Next is kind of a "mechanics" question. Do I immediately enforce the penalty (which in this case would involve returning the R2 & R3 to their TOP bases and awarding the BR 1B and nullifying the two "apparently scored" runs) and then, either actively or passively seeing if the offense wants the play instead. I think I would skip this (though I'm still a little "up in the air" on this question) and go right to seeing what the offense's choice was. Again, you certainly wouldn't be "wrong" if you first enfroced the penalty. Just seems like it might be unnecessarily time-consuming. Third, you are definitely going to be having some conversations with coaches as this unfolds. At the end, when you call the out on the appeal and nullify two runs, the OM is going to be ready to have a stroke! I mean, he just got 2 outs and had 2 runs nullified on a play where the defense broke the rules. "You can't possibly be serious!!" is an expression I wouldn't be surprised to hear. My (apparently lame) role-playing exercise was an attempt to try to draw out some of the things you might want to say or avoid saying as you explain the options to the coach on your first conversation so that you are on "rock solid" ground when the second conversation ensues. I think the really good umpire is the one who not only makes the right call(s) in this sitch, but manages to get through it without dumping anyone (which may prove unavoidable) and prevents a "goat rodeo" from occurring on the field. JM

Me: Michael, Well, I think I want the choice where my R3 scores. But, I thought you awarded my R2 home when they threw the ball out of play. Why doesn't he score? I mean, if he scores too, I'll defintiely take that choice.

Me: TT, Thanks. That makes sense. So, since my runners were going on the pitch, my R3 scores, my R2's at 3B, and my batter is at 1B. I'll choose that.

Out of role In regard to 'offering" the coach the option, despite the cite provided by Brian earlier, J/R actually recommends offering the option in "...all amateur codes..." (check the note, Brian); Carl Childress also recommends this in the BRD. Since I don't call professional games, I follow this practice. Back in role Me: Brian, So, you're saying I can pick between having the 2 runs scored and my batter is out, or I can pick to have bases loaded and nobody's out. Is that right? alternatively.... Me: TT, What's going on here? Why'd you send my runners back? They get to score on a CI don't they!?!?!?

Brian, I haven't picked yet. I'm still trying to understand my choices. Get back into "role" and respond to my "coach questions". JM

Brian, So, I've got a choice here, right? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying my runners score if my batter is out? If I pick putting the batter at 1B, what happens to the runners? JM

Brian &/or Warren, Just for fun, let's back up a little. I'm the Offensive Manager and the initial play has just become relaxed. Me: Brian/Warren, may I have time? Y'all: Sure John, what's up? Me: I thought I heard you call interference on the catcher, right? So, what's the deal? Shouldn't my batter be on 1B? Y'all: .... ? (Your turn) JM

Johnny, Cite please? JM

Johnny, 8.05 Penalty, 2nd Approved Ruling. JM

Johnny, The R1 is out, the balk is disregarded, the runs are nullified and the half inning is over. If any runner passes but fails to touch his advance base, he is considered as having reached it in determining whether the balk should be disregarded. JM

dash, I would go with deleting the "not". JM

Brian, I was thinking of the sitch where the runner was deemed to have corrected his infraction the "last time by". On a "gross miss", I'd just (hypothetically) say "...failed to touch 2B on his way back...". If the coach brings up LTB, then I'll say "by interpretation..." and "..on a gross miss...". As you suggest, though there aren't that many, there are some coaches who do know the rules. It can be unpleasnt to be caught "off guard" in this regard. JM

Brian, I think that's an excellent question - one that represents what I most value in these boards. Not only discussing the proper ruling on a "weird" sitch, but discussing how you might handle the ensuing "conversation". In my experience, the "weirder" the play, the more likely you are to have an ensuing conversation. Honestly, I'm not sure what I would say in this sitch. It would depend on how the coach approached me. I think (hope) I would use phrases like "corrected his infraction his last time by" and "the official interpretation on that is...". I would try to avoid using language like "loophole", "exploited", and "cheat". Even if that were exactly what I was thinking. JM

Brian, I'm not Larry, but yep, I think that's exactly what he's saying. It's exactly how I would rule in the sitch. JM

Mr Umpire, I'm not sure when this interp came into being, but it's covered in my 2003 edition of J/R and in the 2002 MLBUM. The current rule text does not appear in the 2004 NCAA rule book. For FED, the BRD cites a 2007 Elliott Hopkins interp published on the FED website. The BRD implies that this became part of the NCAA rule book in 2007. The explanation of the "gross miss exception" provided by UMPTTS43 is consistent with what I have been taught. I have also heard "within a body's length" of the base as a criteria to apply in determining a "near" vs. "gross" miss. JM