3rd World Play

[Kevin_K]

Since most of us are off the field for the foreseeable future, I thought it might worthwhile getting the insight of the masses on this "situation" that occurred this previous spring. This happened in a HS county final, which in NJ is a dig deal. 

I have spoken to some here about this already and have the input of a lot of others who are not. Those who are aware should resist the temptation to join in the fun of what ifs or coulda beens if at all possible. Here goes......

I am PU in a 3 man crew. Bottom 7, 1 out , R1 and R3, Fed rules.

BR hits a seed to F5, about 6 inches off the ground. R3 is moving on contact. F5 tries to sell the catch of a short hop, but U3 clearly signals and verbalizes no catch, which F5 does not see or hear. F5 runs to 3B in what looks like a DP as R3 was about 20 feet off the base.

As F5 touches 3B, VT pours out of the 1B dugout celebrating the apparent county championship. BR squats on the 1B line about 15 feet away from HP, thinking he has lined out to F5 and it is a game ending DP. R1 makes his way to 2B, but slows to a stop just before reaching the bag.VT forms a dogpile between pitchers mound and 1B in their haste to celebrate.

F5 recognizes that U3 has called no catch and throws to 1B. R3 takes off for home and crosses the plate. HT coach (in the 3B coach's box) begins to windmill his arms and R1 touches 2B and heads for third. F3 catches the throw from F5 and steps on 1B as R1 begins to round 3B and head for home. BR never made a legitimate attempt to advance to 1B after he squatted on the line. F3 fights his way through the mass of humanity between the mound and 1B in an effort to beat R1 to HP. R1 is tagged out about 6 feet from HP.

Now what????

 

[Replacematt]

A. What was your crew doing to keep the VT off the field?

B. I've got two runs scoring. This is OBS and R1 is awarded home. For the record, I don't have abandonment on BR, but it's moot as there was only one out. Clear the field of the folks who shouldn't be there, and resume with no runners and two out.

[Rich Ives]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

A. What was your crew doing to keep the VT off the field?

B. I've got two runs scoring. This is OBS and R1 is awarded home. For the record, I don't have abandonment on BR, but it's moot as there was only one out. Clear the field of the folks who shouldn't be there, and resume with no runners and two out.

One run. Three outs.   R1  wasn't obstructed. The dog pile was between HP and 1B.  F3 was hindered by his own teammates dogpile in his attempt to get to HP to tag R1.

[Richvee]

51 minutes ago, Matt said:

A. What was your crew doing to keep the VT off the field?

 

I saw the play..I can't speak for the crew, but I can say it happened REAL fast. My estimate is it took about 3 seconds from the time F5 got the ball to the time of the dogpile. There was a play in progress. My guess would be the crew was umpiring a play and before they knew it, the dogpile was there.

[jms1425]

58 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

One run. Three outs.   R1  wasn't obstructed. The dog pile was between HP and 1B.  F3 was hindered by his own teammates dogpile in his attempt to get to HP to tag R1.

Yup. I did think about the "don't leave the dugout during a live ball" rule (after looking it up, it's 3.3.1a), but the only penalty is a warning and ejection on the next offense. Since the game is over, that's moot.

 

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

One run. Three outs.   R1  wasn't obstructed. The dog pile was between HP and 1B.  F3 was hindered by his own teammates dogpile in his attempt to get to HP to tag R1.

I didn't read anything that hinted at OBS on R1, so I also have one run and three outs. 

That said, I'm not familiar with FED rules so anything FED specific will be news to me. 

[Replacematt]

Yep, I misread it.

One run scores. Inning over. If R3 was the winning run or if they were down by two or more, the game is over.

[GPblue]

OK Kevin, I think enough have posted with the correct FED ruling was, what was ruled in the game?

[Kevin_K]

Here is a video of the play.

 

 

[Kevin_K]

Here's what we considered when making our decision(s): catch/ no catch, abandonment, obstruction, and unauthorized persons

[Rich Ives]

14 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Here's what we considered when making our decision(s): catch/ no catch, abandonment, obstruction, and unauthorized persons

You said it was no catch

You have to leave the basepath to be guilty of abandonment - just stopping doesn't qualify.  AND it has to be after touching first base.

You can't obstruct your own teammate.

Penalty for unauthorized is a warning.  If you stopped play for it then the defensive strategy would be to rush the field on purpose to stop play and prevent the offense from scoring.

[Richvee]

The one problem I have relying on 3-3-1a on this play is I don't think it really addresses this situation. It refers to  A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel. I don't think the rulemakers had a team swarming the field in mind when they wrote this and the accompanying penalty.

I think it can also be argued R1 was indeed obstructed by the commotion of the defensive team swarming the field during a live ball. 

 

[Kevin_K]

After the tag at home, the three of us got together to try to figure out what we had all seen.

I asked U3 if he was sure of the no catch and he said,"Absolutely!"  U1 said he had no attempt of BR to get to 1B. I had R3 touching home plate. R1 was at second base, as I saw it, when F5 touched 3B. The most significant concern we had was with the VT pouring out of the dugout.

We knew that unauthorized personnel on the field carries a penalty of "Hey! Don't do that again!" Under normal circumstances, this is sufficient as most situations do not involve the entire team pouring onto the field. C;ear;y, this was not a normal circumstance.

We viewed to actions of the VT to be obstruction as their actions changed the pattern of play.

Our decisions:  R3 scores without any concern as he advanced and touched HP as the play unfolded. BR was out at 1B for abandonment. Its R1 we had significant discussion about. The relative closeness of the play at the plate was the basis of obstruction. Fed rules dictate an award of one base from the obstruction. We had to decide where to put him. We ruled 2B. We decided 2B based on how we saw the play being affected by the actions of the defensive team and where the ball had been hit. From our perspective, had the VT never piled out of the dugout, R1 would have never likely made any attempt at advancing beyond 2B with a play that stayed in the infield.

At the time, we discussed placing R1 at 3B or awarding home plate. U1 wasn't sure that R1 got to second, and I would not have said I was 100% either. R1 did indeed pass 2B as the play unfolded, but we did not think that an out at HP was the right call based on what we viewed as continuing obstruction. Sure the runner was not directly obstructed, but the extra players on the field certainly altered the play.

At the conclusion of our discussion the score was tied, there were two outs, and R1 was at second base. We discussed the play with each head coach and explained our rationale in full. The VT coach accepted the ruling. His biggest concern was that R3 did not touch HP. I assured him that the runner did touch HP.

Following the game, I discussed this with almost every umpire I know, including my assigners. Almost everyone thought we handled the situation properly. Those discussions did not necessarily relieve my concerns that we handled the situation properly.

I exchanged several messages with @maven and others whose insights were exceptional. We discussed several possible resolutions that could have addressed the multitude of concerns in this play. This play has so many moving parts that many rulings could be applied and could be supported within the rules.  

So, how does this game end? Ignore the commentator.... the runner was placed at second base.

 

 

 

 

[Replacematt]

25 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

The relative closeness of the play at the plate was the basis of obstruction. Fed rules dictate an award of one base from the obstruction. We had to decide where to put him. We ruled 2B. We decided 2B based on how we saw the play being affected by the actions of the defensive team and where the ball had been hit. From our perspective, had the VT never piled out of the dugout, R1 would have never likely made any attempt at advancing beyond 2B with a play that stayed in the infield.

 

 

You cannot support this by rule. He has advanced beyond the base to which he was entitled, by your judgement. He's out.

[ALStripes17]

You cannot support this by rule. He has advanced beyond the base to which he was entitled, by your judgement. He's out.

Or the application of the abandonment rule by the BR... Which doesn't exist prior to 1B.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

Sounds like a rare 10-2-3-g situation. That would be the only rule that would then apply.

[Replacematt]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Sounds like a rare 10-2-3-g situation. That would be the only rule that would then apply.

Everything on this play has a rule that covers it. It may not result in an equitable outcome, but that's what it is.

[th3]

its not easy out there

 

[Jimurray]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

Everything on this play has a rule that covers it. It may not result in an equitable outcome, but that's what it is.

My perception is that everything was covered by a rule and I would have 1 run and 3 outs, the B-R out at 1B being by the throw and not abandonment. But once they put R2 back at 2B the only rule applied there was 10-2-3-g. While there is a rule covering leaving the dugout, a defensive team leaving the dugout and impacting play is not covered by rule.

[lawump]

First of all, you guys had a crazy third-world play in a huge game that most of us will never have to deal with.  So, I can't say that any of us would have gotten it correctly on the field.  We are arm-chair umpiring in our responses (but you invited this.)

With that said, here are my thoughts:  First, by rule you cannot have abandonment (as posted above).  The FED rulebook specifically states that abandonment cannot occur until after the runner has acquired first base.  Rule 8-4-2 (p).

Next, "(o)obstruction is an act...by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2."  (Rule 2-22-1 emphasis added)  Rule 5-1-3 deals with catcher's obstruction (not applicable in the OP) and Rule 8-3-2 states, "when a runner is obstruction while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond the position on base when he obstruction occurred..." (Rule 8-3-2 emphases added).

In your rationalization defending/explaining your call, you state that the VT pouring onto the field "changed the pattern of the play".  The problem with that, IMHO, is that (1) 5-1-3 doesn't apply and (2) 8-3-2 doesn't apply because the runner was never blocked, hindered, contacted or in any other way prevented from advancing around the bases.  You can't just say "the pattern of play" was changed.  For this clause of the rule to apply, the pattern had to be changed either pursuant to Rule 5-1-3 or pursuant to Rule 8-3-2 in order for this clause to be relevant.  I don't think there is anything in the NFHS casebook that supports the conclusion you guys reached.

Again, in my view the problem in the OP, is that the runner is never hindered by the defense.  He was abled to run unimpeded from first base to home.  He never had to break his stride (nor was he physically impeded) because of the actions of a defensive player.   To say that R1 would never have tried for home had the VT not come running onto the field, and thus the VT running out of the dugout constitutes obstruction, is wrong, IMHO.  R1 was never hindered or impeded by the defense.  Rather, R1 saw the defensive team celebrating (and not paying attention to the umpires) and tried to take advantage of it.  His attempt failed and, in my opinion, you bailed him out.

I think this is a difficult play for the umpires ONLY because it occurred in the last inning of a huge game with a big crowd.  On paper, however, I think call is very simple:  there is no abandonment by rule.  The B/R is out 5-3.  R3 scores.  R1 is out on the play at the plate.  

[maven]

An option that I proposed when Kevin first sent me this play is to kill it when the defensive team comes streaming out on the field. It's unreasonable to expect play to proceed under those circumstances, and it's "not baseball" when all hell is breaking loose.

This is not the situation envisioned in 3-3-1a, where team personnel leave the dugout for an unauthorized purpose: compare 3.3.1A, which envisions "several players" leaving the dugout during a live ball to congratulate a teammate who has scored. The case play describes absolutely no impact on play. THAT action deserves a warning. THIS is an utter shîtshow, and should be killed right now. If you buy this line, the rules basis would be 10-2-3g.

Under this approach, we might ask: Would the BR have kept running without the mayhem? Would R1 have tried to score? Who can say? Kill it, place the runners, resume play. One idea is to leave the bases loaded: no runs, no outs, play on. Nobody happy, everybody equally unhappy. Seems fair — or maybe least unfair — under the circumstances. 

If we think that it's still baseball with 40 people on the field and leave it live, I agree with the growing consensus here: R3 scores, BR out at 1B, R1 out at HP.

The only mechanics suggestion I would have is to sell the bejeesus out of that initial no catch call. If we can communicate that, then we have a shot to have baseball for the rest of the play.

[Mudisfun]

In the 2nd video taken from the center field area you can see U3 pretty clearly. Even the 3rd BC caught the no catch signal and was jumping up and down signaling no catch to his runners. But to your point U3 has to be BIG on this call in this situation.

Nutty play. Thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[beerguy55]

I just want to say that as a coach, this is the type of conversation I love to see.  Especially in a big CF of a situation like this.  It helps me see how the guys in the trenches think, both in the moment, and after the fact, as well as impartial observers.  Thanks for this.