Interpretation of rule stops game

[Guest Rdm]

Our team was batting.  We had two outs and a runner on first base. It was a dropped 3 strike. The other teams 3rd base coach was yelling for the batter to run. The umpire jumps up yelling out and pointing to the plate. He continues yelling out at the plate game over (would of been the last out of the game). Our kids (10U) confused attempted the play at first but gave up because of the umpire yelling out.  The umpire realized he made a mistake after the fact and granted the batter first base. Is this the right call to make after he ended play? I understand he had the ruling wrong but his mistake prevented the kids from making the play in the field.  

[Velho]

What rule set?

Did the umpire think uncaught third strike ('U3K') was not in effect for this level? Or did he simply forget there were two outs?

Two personal adds: 10U should not play with U3K. And, as a coach, preach 'play it out' like an NFL fumble. 

[beerguy55]

 

He put both teams at a disadvantage...the runner likely didn't run either for the same reasons the fielders stopped.  The umpire can correct this the best he can, with what he thought "would have" happened if he hadn't erred.  That's his judgment.   It's a best guess...if the ball was at the backstop, I'm giving the batter first...if the ball was in the catcher's mitt after a bounce, I'm likely keeping the out.

 

I will also add my $0.02 that 10U (any skill level) is too young for the dropped third strike rule (Infield Fly too).    

[Guest Rdm]

Sorry I’m not sure of the rule set.  The league is Cal Ripken. Playing at the majors level. I agree with both responses. They should not play the dropped 3rd strike rule. 

The Cather fielded the ball clean out of the dirt and made a throw to first. The first baseman dropped the throw. He had time to recover and make the play but gave up after the umpire yelled game over. During the confusion with the coaches yelling the batter went to first. Also we only had one umpire. I also agree they should learn to finish the play. It all worked out. We struck out the next batter. But could of gone the other way. We were up by one and that put runners on first and second. I just have never seen more confusion in one play and wasn’t sure of the correct call after the incorrect call! 
 

 

[LRZ]

OBR 8.02(c) states, in part, "If the umpires consult after a play and change a call that had been made, then they have the authority to take all steps that they may deem necessary, in their discretion, to eliminate the results and consequences of the earlier call that they are reversing, including placing runners where they think those runners would have been after the play, had the ultimate call been made as the initial call...."

NFHS 10-2-3l states that the UIC has the authority to "[r]ectify any situation in which an umpire’s decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage."

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Guest Rdm said:

(would of been

would have been.

 

At this level, the umpire is likely learning, too.  The proper call here is to adjust for what likely would have happened.  Probably an out.  I hope the umpire will learn and get it right next time.  And, I hope all the players from both sides enjoyed the post-game snack.

[maven]

This can happen at 13U or higher as well. In that case, the strikeout stands: the umpire improperly called time, and at that point his opportunity to advance lapsed.

So, still out.

[Velho]

11 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I hope all the players from both sides enjoyed the post-game snack.

Great point. The only question that matters here is 'chocolate or vanilla?'

[LRZ]

1 hour ago, maven said:

In that case, the strikeout stands: the umpire improperly called time, and at that point his opportunity to advance lapsed.

Please provide a rule citation, as this is in conflict with the rules I cited, as well as the opinions by beerguy55 and noumpere.

And, Velho, you've omitted "swirl."

 

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, LRZ said:

And, Velho, you've omitted "swirl."

 

I think the proper term is "non-binary"

[maven]

15 hours ago, LRZ said:

Please provide a rule citation, as this is in conflict with the rules I cited, as well as the opinions by beerguy55 and noumpere.

The rule you cited concerns changing a judgment call: fair <-> foul, catch <-> no catch, safe <-> out.

You might say that an out call was changed, but it's not an out that was the result of a play (and wouldn't in most instances be changed to safe anyway). The umpire declared the batter out by rule (on the K), not on a judgment call (on a play by the defense).

No judgment call, no recourse. This rule is mistakenly interpreted to allow umpires to change ("fix") anything, at any time. That's not what it says.

Noumpere's advice is fine at some levels, and might prevent a protest by the defense here. As usual, there's not a great answer to the "what's the mechanic when the umpire screws up a rule or mechanic?" question. 

[maven]

14 hours ago, noumpere said:

I think the proper term is "non-binary"

 

[LRZ]

OBR 8.02(b): "If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire's decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made." We are then directed to 8.02(c).

When the PU called the batter out, he made a call that was in conflict with the rules: the batter was not "out" on the U3K. 5.05(a)(2): he became a runner when the third strike was not caught. This is reflected in the mechanic, where we use the "safe/arms out" signal, not the hammer, chainsaw or other "out" signal.

We're not talking about a judgment call. If the umpire had not misapplied the rules, what would the result have been? That is the appropriate remedy, consistent with 8.02(b,c).

[beerguy55]

On 5/14/2022 at 7:00 AM, maven said:

The rule you cited concerns changing a judgment call: fair <-> foul, catch <-> no catch, safe <-> out.

You might say that an out call was changed, but it's not an out that was the result of a play (and wouldn't in most instances be changed to safe anyway). The umpire declared the batter out by rule (on the K), not on a judgment call (on a play by the defense).

No judgment call, no recourse. This rule is mistakenly interpreted to allow umpires to change ("fix") anything, at any time. That's not what it says.

Noumpere's advice is fine at some levels, and might prevent a protest by the defense here. As usual, there's not a great answer to the "what's the mechanic when the umpire screws up a rule or mechanic?" question. 

 

You touch on the crux in your last statement.  It's now a protest situation - the umpire has misapplied the rule by calling the runner out.

There is a protest process because errors with the rules are fixable.   If they weren't, there'd be no protest mechanism..."yeah, we know the umpire screwed up, but he made the call, so it's final."

You have situations where umpires realize they made a mistake about the rule almost immediately, or within minutes...otherwise, you have situations where a protest process has confirmed the mistake an hour, a day , a week later.   

Do we really need to wait for a protest committee to rule on something an umpire could do then and there?  As per what @LRZ says.

If a protest were to run its course, the remedy would almost certainly be the same - ie. whomever manages the protest, and determines the umpire mishandled the rule, would use judgment to remedy the situation...with the additional feature of wasting everybody's time, and (if deemed to have impacted the outcome) then having to come back and finish the game.

 

This is a little odd, because in the end there are two rules in dispute...one is the U3K rule...and then the other is the rule about fixing mistakes.

If the umpire insisted the batter was out by rule, the protest process would be pretty clear.  Incorrect rule application, apply remedy.  Remedy would be a judgment call to what would have happened.  But I submit it would have to be pretty compelling evidence that the b/r would have reached first safely.  Most of the time the end result of this dispute is an out call anyway.

But here, the ump realizes they made a mistake...if the umpire then determined they can't correct their mistake, then I guess that would be the subject of the protest, but for all intents and purposes it would be like protesting the U3K rule error.  Conversely, in the OP the defense could protest the placement of B/R on first base...not to protest the umpire's judgment, but whether or not the umpire is allowed to use judgment there...IMO they'd lose.   The umpire was allowed to try to fix it...he just used poor judgment in doing so.

[LRZ]

When considering whether the rules allow an umpire to correct a misapplication of the rules, as I've argued, or whether a team must file a formal protest, a protest is not always an available option. PIAA, for example, does not recognize protests. (Yes, I know the OP was not a scholastic contest, but the point remains.) Another practical reason, besides the points beerguy55 made, to apply the clear language of 8.02 (b,c).

 

[beerguy55]

Technically speaking, in reading the rules as written, including the flow of the language, 8.02(c) more contextually aligns with 8.02(b) - appealing a misapplication of rules - than with 8.02(a) - objecting a judgment call.

8.02(a) very clearly states a judgment call is final, and nobody may object to it...so, by that statement alone 8.02(c) is more often meant to be about rules mistakes, not changing judgment calls.   The judgment examples that do happen, where 8.02(c) is used to fix them,  are those that are so egregious that not correcting the mistake would be, in effect, violating the rules - they're not about a disagreement in judgment, but simply that one umpire didn't have a piece of information they needed to make the correct call....the common examples cited on this message board like ball on ground, foot off bag are what come to mind - assuming the umpire isn't letting the coach shop for calls.   It's not judging whether the runner beat the throw/tag or not...it's determining the facts to whether or not the fielder completed their actual obligations, based upon the rules, to complete a tag.  Even half-swing appeals are really about deferring to the BU to determine if they saw something the PU didn't.

It's a subtle difference.  If the umpire sees everything they need to see to make their judgment call, there's no need to go for help, unless there's a rules dispute.

 

Of course, this all gets thrown out the window if you have replay review.