Over rule reversal

[1fingeredknuckler]

Bases loaded 1 out flyball to f9, caught for 2nd out, runner on 3rd tags scores, defense appeals tag at 3rd, disallowed, run scores, defense appeals tag up on 2nd, runner is called out for leaving to soon, runner on 3rd was not allowed to score, inning over.

this is the 5th inning sectional semi final game, discussion ensues, game continues, in the 7th inning rule books out, phone call to st office, protest could not be allowed as per association rules for st tournament play, umpires then reverse decision allow run to have scored, game over

if your confused we are also

about a reversal 2 innings later

did the runner on 3rd score before the runner on 2nd left to soon, they would both have had to leave the after the catch to be safe, if the runner on 2nd left before the runner on 3rd how could the runner have crossed the plate to be safe?

was not there, did not see it and a lot of other folks did not se it either. but it seems strange to a lot of folks. why did the umpire call the st office and 2 innings later it's reversed?

all i can tell, so i can't answer any questions you might have

 

[SoCal_Dad]

The timing for whether the run scores is when the runner touched home plate vs. when the 3rd out was made. The 3rd out occurred when they successfully appealed R2 leaving 2B early, not when the infraction occurred.

They were very late making the correct call.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

The timing for whether the run scores is when the runner touched home plate vs. when the 3rd out was made. The 3rd out occurred when they successfully appealed R2 leaving 2B early, not when the infraction occurred.

They were very late making the correct call.

that was a question i asked an official, and he did not know, if that's the case it's the same as a rundown if tag is or is not made before runner crosses home plate,

Now you didn't say if they can go back 2 innings and reverse it? There is mo protest allowed here as i was told.

It's a botched call if it happened as reported. so 2 innings later they can reverse it?

WIAA softball: Umpires' decision gives Madison La Follette controversial win over Middleton : Prep-zone

 

[Umpire]

I have seen this topic on multiple forums. It is interesting how everyone has the "just get the call right" attitude and they all seem to forget that ultimately that happened in this case.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

I have seen this topic on multiple forums. It is interesting how everyone has the "just get the call right" attitude and they all seem to forget that ultimately that happened in this case.

the only question folks have, it was corrected 2 innings later?

that is what seems to be the only question, no one seems to think that should have been done?

is there the stipulation you can do that? if so where is it?

 

[Ajaywill]

This particular situation is being discussed extensively on an umpire discusson board.

Yes...the umpires were incorrect in not allowing the run to score when the appeal was made at second for the third out of the inning. From what I understand from reading the article is that the umpires specifically stated that the run DID NOT count. This is a rule misapplication that is subject to protest. I understand that the WIAA does not recognize protests, but the offended team should have stopped the game at that point, got a rulebook out, called a UIC, whatever, and got the ruling that the run did not score reversed. That needed to be done prior to another pitch being thrown. By taking the time to dig through the rulebook to find a correct ruling before approaching the umpire, they have forfeited their right to protest. Adding the run back to the score at that time was wrong, in my opinion.

There are others who do not agree with me and say that it was a scorekeeping error that can be corrected at any time and allowing the run to be added back to the score an inning and a half later was correct.

FWIW....I understand this play and article has been forwarded to the National UIC staff of ASA for their opinion. That opinion is not going to affect what happened in Wisconsin, but it will be interesting to see what the interpretation is.

 

[1fingeredknuckler]

I personally staled to a person that was there and a lot of your comments are true about the handling of this. The problem was a lot of people there , coaches included with umpires did not know the rule, surprisingly the home plate ump is or was a national director in one of the fast pitch associations, and the base umpire is known to be a rule guru.

So, out come the rule books after the 6th inning or before, but in the 7th inning it was determined as per 3 different rules in the NFHS, there is an area of correctional miss application rule interpretation. Protests are not allowed, and it was corrected to the right situation, under unusual circumstances.

I wasn't quick enough to get them right but these are the sections and rules involved

ru 4.4 protests

no protests period

1 to 9 exception rule 10 umpire was applied

10.4

protest


2 ,12

There may be more next week, and maybe i could get this guy to write it as per the rule application/

What should happen in a case like this, is the game never proceeds until the rule is absolute, especially when protests are not allowed