Dicey rules question

left out one detail. Executive director ruled at the time the play stands as called. Interesting.

GA baseball playoffs have all been insane this year. Truly, the teams that were a shoe in were eliminated early, the people that should have been eliminated early keep advancing.  Odd rules being utilized, it's mass chaos down here in GA!

army54 posted:

My instinct tells me that since first and home were touched and bases were awarded, I think ruling on the field may be incorrect, but we will see what GHSA does.

This play is being discussed up in the "General" forum (and elsewhere on the interwebs), but your instinct is wrong.  In OBR, only BR and R3 need advance (on a "game winning" walk, or HBP, etc.).  In FED, all runners need advance.

army54 posted:

WOW! Semi finals elimination game in GA. Bottom of the 7th game tied 3-3. The bases are loaded and batter draws a walk and game appears to be won. Runner from third advances and touches home, batter runner touches first base. The runner from second fails to touch third base. Defensive coach appeals to umpire and the run is disallowed. Under appeal at GHSA and will be decided this morning if  team appeal will be successful. My instinct tells me that since first and home were touched and bases were awarded, I think ruling on the field may be incorrect, but we will see what GHSA does.

Per 2012 NFHS Rules Interp:

SITUATION 18: In the bottom of the eighth inning, the score is tied, with the bases loaded and two outs. B6 draws a walk and runs and touches first base. B1 trots in from third and touches home plate. B2, however, begins celebrating and never touches third base. RULING: All runners must legally touch the next base in advancing. If the defense legally appeals while at least one umpire is still on the field of play, B2 is declared out for the third out. Since this out would be a “force” out, no runs would score and the game would continue into the ninth inning. (8-2-1, 8-2-6j, 9-1-1a and d)

Umpires got it correct as long as GHSA uses NFHS rules.

You are thinking of the OBR rule which only requires the batter reach first and the runner reach home on an award.

Georgia uses NFHS rules.....call on the field by umpires was correct.

How would you like to be the kid who celebrated early? 

If you look over at the other thread, though, there is video of the play which makes me question the ruling. Sure looked like the kid touched third.

http://usatodayhss.com/?p=101212105

Here's the video.  I don't know.  Looks like the kid touched 3rd.  But it also looks like the 3b umpire is turning away headed to his car. 

Golfman25 posted:

http://usatodayhss.com/?p=101212105

 

Here's the video.  I don't know.  Looks like the kid touched 3rd.  But it also looks like the 3b umpire is turning away headed to his car. 

What? U3 is staring at the base.

Tough to see his face, but if you watch the body, it looks to me like he was turning away.....kid was close to 3rd but not sure if he would have seen whether or not he touched the base.....but the kid definitely crossed over it....seems strange he wouldn't have touched it based on the path he took

Buckeye 2015 posted:

Tough to see his face, but if you watch the body, it looks to me like he was turning away.....kid was close to 3rd but not sure if he would have seen whether or not he touched the base.....but the kid definitely crossed over it....seems strange he wouldn't have touched it based on the path he took

He's not. You can see him in his set before the pitch, and all he does is stand up. Look at his arms...they only go up and down, not turning around.

Yesterday, GHSA actually issued two rulings.  First was on the video.  The ruling is that video is NEVER allowed for review in any situation, so the video is a moot point as it is a judgement call.  Simply put, no different than a bang bang play at first base.

The other point, regarding the interpretation of the rule (was the runner required to touch third or not) is the appeal that is being heard.  That appeal was ruled 3-1 against overturning, which is to say the ruling on the field stands.  The hearing was public and media was there.

Johns Creek (losing team) has now appealed to the 9 member board of trustees who will hear the appeal on Monday am.  Had the vote been unanimous, there could be no further appeal.  Makes you wonder if the lone voter did so to allow further appeal.

Nuke83 posted:

Yesterday, GHSA actually issued two rulings.  First was on the video.  The ruling is that video is NEVER allowed for review in any situation, so the video is a moot point as it is a judgement call.  Simply put, no different than a bang bang play at first base.

The other point, regarding the interpretation of the rule (was the runner required to touch third or not) is the appeal that is being heard.  That appeal was ruled 3-1 against overturning, which is to say the ruling on the field stands.  The hearing was public and media was there.

Johns Creek (losing team) has now appealed to the 9 member board of trustees who will hear the appeal on Monday am.  Had the vote been unanimous, there could be no further appeal.  Makes you wonder if the lone voter did so to allow further appeal.

Wow. Talk about sore losers. The rule was correctly applied for HS. This is two levels too many for protests.

Nuke83 posted:

Yesterday, GHSA actually issued two rulings.  First was on the video.  The ruling is that video is NEVER allowed for review in any situation, so the video is a moot point as it is a judgement call.  Simply put, no different than a bang bang play at first base.

The other point, regarding the interpretation of the rule (was the runner required to touch third or not) is the appeal that is being heard.  That appeal was ruled 3-1 against overturning, which is to say the ruling on the field stands.  The hearing was public and media was there.

Johns Creek (losing team) has now appealed to the 9 member board of trustees who will hear the appeal on Monday am.  Had the vote been unanimous, there could be no further appeal.  Makes you wonder if the lone voter did so to allow further appeal.

3-1? Who was the one is what I would want to know. Someone ruling on the appeal that doesn't know the correct rules or is wiling to ignore it.

Is it correct that in NFHS the team loses right to an appeal when umpires leave the field, implying umpires can only hear appeal?. This would be an appeal since it involves a judgement call and not a protest since it does not involve a rule interpretation. 2.92 e&f of GHSA constitution. No video or protest in any sport.

Looks like he touched the bag and the ump turned to the dugout.  As I heard the story, the umpires were discussing it for quite a while before making a final decision.  That tells me that the ump didn't even see the play, because he'd call the runner out as soon as the coach argued about it.  They thought they missed a play and so they called the runner out.  If that's true, BS, you have to actually see it happen.  

What I haven't heard is how many outs there were. I just heard tie game, bottom of 7th. If there are less than 2 outs, should the run have counted?  I would think so. 

bballman posted:

What I haven't heard is how many outs there were. I just heard tie game, bottom of 7th. If there are less than 2 outs, should the run have counted?  I would think so. 

This would hardly be an issue if there were less than two outs (unless, of course, R1 also failed to advance).

Just for posterity, the secondary appeal was to a 10-person committee.  2 couldn't attend and a third recused himself as a former principal of one of the schools.  The remaining 7 voted on the final appeal.  They ruled 5-2 in favor of Johns Creek, overturning the ruling on the field and the results of the first appeal.  Thus, Johns Creek was declared the winner 4-3 and a third game was played (which Lee County ended up winning 8-0).

There was no official reason given for the appeal ruling, however, at least one of the committee members gave some quotes.  Based on those quotes, it appeared that the reasoning behind the ruling was the umpires' judgements, not the rules.  That is, they didn't determine that the rules were miss-applied or miss-interpreted.  Rather, they said that, basically, the umpires blew the call and reversed the judgement -- the umps said the guy didn't touch 3rd base, but we think he probably did, even though we weren't there.  The guy sort of admits that they set bad precedent in going that direction.

I also read that the original on-field deliberation lasted 20-25 minutes and there were reports that at least one of the umpires was consulting a cell phone during that time.  The committee briefly stated that no cell phones were used.  But, the committee also removed the umpire crew from the remaining playoff games ... which is severe, I would think.  Seems odd to give the old "they did nothing wrong; they're fired" statement.

In any case, the committee is right.  The next time a playoff game ends on a bang-bang judgement play, they have set precedent that this would be grounds for a protest and appeal.  Yikes!  Who wants to umpire in Georgia now?  ;-)