Choice or not?

[UmpJM]

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

Edited January 27, 2009 by UmpJM
Typos

[BrianC14]

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 ther 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 explainng 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

re: the Prozac option.

Yep - there's no clean end of the stick on this one - it's either going to be the DC or the OC ejecting himself. So go for the coach that appears to have taken his meds. :clap:

[UmpTTS43]

Again, this is why it is important to enforce the CI penalty prior to any discussions of "choice" taking place. If the penalty had been enforced correctly, R2 and R3 would have been at their bases and no appeal would have been possible once the ball was put back in play. You cannot have a situation where the outcome of the current play is in limbo. You must have a starting point, hence applying the penalty.

[UmpJM]

Again, this is why it is important to enforce the CI penalty prior to any discussions of "choice" taking place. If the penalty had been enforced correctly, R2 and R3 would have been at their bases and no appeal would have been possible once the ball was put back in play. ...

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

[mstaylor]

As far as land mines, let me point out one not considered. If you enforce the CI and then offer the option, then technically R3 has retouched third nullifying the appeal. I don't think it does but a sharp manager may come up that argument. Then you are in uncharted waters and are going to have to do some slick talking. Personally, I would kill the ball at the end of play, offer the option and place accordingly.

When you offer the choice, simply ask,"Do you want the result of the play or the penalty?" If he asks about the penalty the explain it would be bases loaded and one out. DO NOT discuss the result portion. He saw what happened so he shouldn't need anything there. You CAN NOT say ANYTHING about a possible appeal because that would be coaching both teams. Remember that most appeals are never tried.

[BrianC14]

Again, this is why it is important to enforce the CI penalty prior to any discussions of "choice" taking place. If the penalty had been enforced correctly, R2 and R3 would have been at their bases and no appeal would have been possible once the ball was put back in play. You cannot have a situation where the outcome of the current play is in limbo. You must have a starting point, hence applying the penalty.

The only way to do that is to kill the play just as (or just after) the batter has hit the fly ball, and doing that is the incorrect way to handle this.

[BrianC14]

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

Oh, - now you're talking PROTESTS!

They aren't allowed in my state. :)

[UmpTTS43]

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

I am not denying your appeal, I'm just calling R3 safe.

As ms stated, once R3 has been placed back at third, no appeal can be upheld since R3 has touched third. Last time by concept.

I don't know how your protest will be upheld. On what grounds do you make that assertion? By applying the penalties for this infraction, per the rules, there is nothing here that you can protest under the rule set.

I do know that enforcing the penalty first is taught at JEAPU. I can only assume it is taught that way at Wendelstadt's.

Edited January 27, 2009 by UmpTTS43

[UmpTTS43]

The only way to do that is to kill the play just as (or just after) the batter has hit the fly ball, and doing that is the incorrect way to handle this.

CI is a delayed dead ball. You kill the play when all action has stopped or the ball becomes dead, as in this OP, with the ball being thrown into DBT.

This is how I would call it.

Pitch

Swing

"That's interference"

Fly ball caught, throw enters DBT.

"Time"

"I have CI right here. You (pointing to R3), third, you (R2) second, you (batter), first."

"Coach, by rule, you can have either this penalty for CI or you can have the result of the play."

Coach "What is the result?'

"I score your base runners and your batter is out."

Coach takes the runs, the appeal is not upheld.

DC comes out and asks about the appeal. I tell him that since I enforced the penalty, there is no rule infraction for not tagging up.

Both coaches go to their dugouts and the game is played to completion with me calling another outstanding game behind the plate.

Edited January 27, 2009 by UmpTTS43
appeal denied to not upheld

[UmpJM]

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

[UmpTTS43]

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.

JM

Although no runs have legally scored at this time due to the enforcement of the penalty, I agree with that statement.

However, R3 is not correcting his mistake, I am effectively nullifying the previous play by enforcing the penalty. If OM wants the runs, R3 cannot be appealed for leaving early since he had legally been put back to third.

[UmpJM]

...

However, R3 is not correcting his mistake, I am effectively nullifying the previous play by enforcing the penalty. If OM wants the runs, R3 cannot be appealed for leaving early since he had legally been put back to third.

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

[scobes7]

How about getting the official word on this and closing it out, so we all can see the proper call to be made....:wow:

[UmpTTS43]

Who said R2 has scored? In the original OP the ball was thrown into DBT while trying to retire R3. When the ball becomes dead, I do not award bases due to the throw going into DBT, I enforce the CI because certain criteria has not been met in order for me to disregard it.

I am trying to think of a senario that would involve your reasoning and interpretation when R2 scores.

Time to ponder.

[BrianC14]

Although no runs have legally scored at this time due to the enforcement of the penalty, I agree with that statement.

However, R3 is not correcting his mistake, I am effectively nullifying the previous play by enforcing the penalty. If OM wants the runs, R3 cannot be appealed for leaving early since he had legally been put back to third.

No runs have legally scored?

How do you figure that? You can't just nullify the play at your leisure - and by rule, you have to let the play continue to its end - and in this case, R2 and R3 have legally scored - - otherwise, the only way to stop this is to kill the play, and that's not the correct way to apply the rule.

[BrianC14]

Who said R2 has scored? In the original OP the ball was thrown into DBT while trying to retire R3. When the ball becomes dead, I do not award bases due to the throw going into DBT, I enforce the CI because certain criteria has not been met in order for me to disregard it.

I am trying to think of a senario that would involve your reasoning and interpretation when R2 scores.

Time to ponder.

It's at this point that the option is to be made - or offered, in the case of NCAA and FED. What manager is going to refuse two runs?

[UmpTTS43]

How about getting the official word on this and closing it out, so we all can see the proper call to be made....

I have given you my official word on this.

There is nothing wrong with a little debate and banter from both sides. Who is to say that JM doesn't agree with me and he is just playing devil's advocate?

If it was so easy to get an "official word" we wouldn't have to have this mind stimulating debate. My "official word" concening the proper mechanics on this play was taught to me by J Evans. Although this specific OP was not covered, I have used my training and experience to conjure up my interpretation.

Let me know what you find out.

[BrianC14]

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

Agree with this, 100%.

[BrianC14]

I have given you my official word on this.

There is nothing wrong with a little debate and banter from both sides. Who is to say that JM doesn't agree with me and he is just playing devil's advocate?

If it was so easy to get an "official word" we wouldn't have to have this mind stimulating debate. My "official word" concening the proper mechanics on this play was taught to me by J Evans. Although this specific OP was not covered, I have used my training and experience to conjure up my interpretation.

Let me know what you find out.

Certainly I"m not going to disagree if this is what's taught at JEUA, but let's keep in mind he's teaching for the professional ranks, and in that case, the "choice" option is not offered, so it stands to reason that he would teach "enforce the penalty" - - however, if the offensive manager knows the rule book, he's going to bring up the options that are available to him. As we've already seen, NCAA and FED books call for the umpire to offer the choices...

[Mr Umpire]

Wouldn't this fall under the same premise as Obstruction Type B? The play continues to its end. Say R2 was obstructed while rounding 3B and the umpire only protected him to 3B. But, the R2 is thrown out at HP. The out would stand with no options given in that case.

So, wouldn't CI go along the same concept of letting the play finish. Then, give the options to the coach or allow the coach to tell you his option(in higher ball). But, I can't imagine giving the Offense a free advantage of correcting their mistake by putting the runners back to nullify leaving early.

All we can do is allow them to make the decision and let whatever happens, happens. Both runners have scored with the ball going out of play because, technically, the play isn't over until R2 has scored even with the ball going out of play. Then, even if you enforce the CI first and the coach picks the result, R3 and R2 can just go back into the dugout because they have already scored on the play.

By putting them back on base and then they don't even have to retouch HP because they did on the play, that is making a real mess of things.

To me, unless the coach chooses the penalty, nothing the umpire does can nullify the appeal. If they choose the result, then they also choose the fact that the runner left early on the play and is subject to appeal. That is all part of the result of the play.

[UmpJM]

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

[LMSANS]

Busy day on this thread. Without repeating everything, my ruling would be the same as JM. I don't do pro ball, and I think that is a key factor in the difference between TT and JM interps.

[BrianC14]

Busy day on this thread. Without repeating everything, my ruling would be the same as JM. I don't do pro ball, and I think that is a key factor in the difference between TT and JM interps.

Agreed. I'm with JM approach as well.

[mstaylor]

TT is exactly right for pro ball. JM and the others are exactly right non-pro ball.

[UmpTTS43]

Oh great, you're all ganging up on me.

Seriously though, it has been a great, civil and well thought out discussion and made me think even more. I think it boils down to this:

1) Do we enforce the CI when the play has reached it's conclussion by placing runners back on base or do we offer the choice prior to enforcing the penalties?

2) If we do enforce the penalties prior to "the choice," does that take away the opportunity for the defense to appeal?

Obviously I'm in the camp that would enforce the penalties prior to the choice. My question then is above in #2.

I posted this question, removing R2 from the equation, on Wendelstedt's board. It will be interesting to see what the response might be. I do know that in referencing his manual, it says, "after all action has ceased, and it is apparent that all runners, including the BR have not advanced one base safely, the umpire should enforce the penalty for catcher's interference." However, in his situations, there are no appeal plays.

Edited January 28, 2009 by UmpTTS43