I saw one of the strangest plays in recent (or non-recent) memory last night in the National Baseball Congress World Series in the game between the Park City Rangers and the Gunnison (Colo.) Colts.
It was the eighth inning and Park City had the bases loaded with no outs, trailing 2-1. The batter hit a deep fly ball to center field, which the center fielder dove toward the warning track to catch. It was an amazing play. He flipped the ball to the left fielder, but since he was slow to get up, two runs scored on the sacrifice fly.
But the batter, who was out, obviously, since the center fielder caught the ball, was called out again (?) for passing the runner who had been on first base. So somehow, there were two outs even though:
A) There were only four people involved in the play — two scored, one was out, and one was on base.
B) How is that possible? If a runner is on base he is not out. And since two others scored, there could have only been one out. Right?
C) Again — 2 runs + 1 on base + 1 out = 4.
The Park City manager argued the play and apparently got some sort of explanation that he was OK with. But if I’m the manager, I absolutely do not leave the field until the umpires come up with a solution that is correct. And the correct solution in this case would be that the runner stays at second, the batter is out and the two runs score.
That’s essentially what happened, but the question then becomes, how are there now two outs? Nobody really ever figured that out. Even official scorer Mike Dean, who has been serving in that capacity at the NBC forever, had never seen anything like it. His explanation from the umpires was that it was a double play, yet somehow the runner was allowed to stay at second.
Um, what? What if that runner had scored? Would that run be taken off the board since that runner was technically out? The worst thing about this for Park City was that Gunnison ended up winning. If ever there were a correct time to protest a game, this would be it. The umpires completely screwed up this call. And I’m not one to ever call out umpires, but let’s again recap.
Four players involved — the batter and three runners. Two scored, one was on base. That makes three. Yet there are two outs.
It’s just not possible. It can’t happen.
So that was crazy.
And I got a comment asking if Doug Hurn would be a viable candidate for the No. 5 starter’s job. Well, he’s as good a choice for that spot as anybody. My choice, however, would be Justin Young. He’s had major confidence issues since moving to the bullpen and hasn’t necessarily thrived in that role. But he was probably Wichita’s best pitcher early in the season and J.Y. can find that success again in the rotation, I think. It’s not like he can do any worse than the others who have tried to fill that role, and I like Hurn better in the bullpen, even though he got hit around last night.
2 Comments
Jeff- I’ll give you the credit, you are willing to back umpires when they are right, and you don’t willfully blast them when they are clearly wrong, either. As the plate umpire in that game, I’d like to clarify some things that happened, or didn’t happen.
#1) I want to address today’s description from Paul Sullentrop (Aug. 6 version). In that box about the NBC tourny, Paul states that the batter, after the catch, was returning the the duggout and was tagged out, making 2 outs on the same player. That is innaccurate. The player who was called out for the 2nd out of the inning on that play was a willing participant in a rundown between 2nd and 3rd base that involved at least 3 throws, and the runner was retired as he was heading towards 3rd base, not his duggout, which was on the first base side.
#2) NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is for sure what happend on that play regarding the runners, because 99.9% of the people at that game were watching a fantastic catch by the center fielder, and were NOT watching the runners. I have talked to over 30 different people, and I can honestly tell you there have been multiple versions, and it’s split 50/50 on the 2nd out being the batter/runner and being the runner that started that play on 1st base.
#3) I’ve had 3 umpires tell me it was the runner from first, who tagged and went to 2nd, that was ultimately caught in the rundown. When umpires or officials watch a game, they watch from a different perspective than fans, media, etc. Two of those spectating umpires were in the left field batting cage area and were looking at the 3rd base umpire who made the call, as from that location you can not see left-center field. They instinctively looked at the umpire to see what the call was. Both, being umpires, looked to see what the runners were doing and both are certain that the batter/runner ended up on 2nd base, and the runner from 1st was caught in the rundown. The other umpire/spectator was in the stands, in the top row and said he was 100% certain it was the batter/runner who ended up staying at 2nd base.
#4) You are correct on the math. It didn’t occur to my crew and I that we had 5 players involved on a play, when there is only room for 4 of them. As you pointed out, 2 runs scored, 2 outs recorded, how in the heck could there be a runner still left on ANY base????? We missed that one for SURE. It was amazing that it registered about the time we walked into the dressing room and started deciphering the math… amazing how much more clear we were able to think when things were settled and the action had stopped and passed by.
#5) We tried, in vain, to secure a video tape or DVD of the game from the NBC office. Jerry Taylor and Josh Robertson informed us that the video recording equipment went to Springdale with The Naturals, therefor there was no copy available to review to find out for certain what happend and what we missed.
#6) One of two things happend: we either called 2 outs on the same player (hurting Park City in the inning) OR we gave then an additional runner, if the batter-runner was indeed left on 2nd base after the play was over (helping Park City by giving them a chance to score a runner that shouldn’t have been on base). AGAIN, no one is sure of who was who, even the scorekeepers were apparently conflicted on who was on what base. This is not a statement against them doing their jobs at all, just a matter of everyone being massively confused.
#7) The initial conversation I had with Barry Newell of Park City was about OBSTRUCTION of his runner by Gunnison’s pitcher DURING THE RUNDOWN.
#8) If the batter-runner was indeed the person involved in the play after being out, he created an interference by rule, potetially resulting in an out on the preceeding runner.
#9) The person who was called out following the catch was NOT called out for passing a runner, due to the notion that we didn’t determine he was the batter-runner. he was called out as a result of the rundown, in which he was retired after attempting to gain 3rd base. We were not certain which runner he was, we believed him to be the runner from first, who went to 2nd on the tag-up, and believed him to be the one who was caught in the rundown. AGAIN, not one person is 100% sure who was who, outside of the batter and the runner on the play.
#10) Following the meeting with the crew, I CLEARLY indicated to the players, coaches, stands, and press box that we had 2 outs. I received a confirmation from my crew memebers, as well as the scoreboard displayed 2 outs, prior to taking a pitch with the next batter.
#11) Following the “3rd out” of the inning, Barry came to me and stated that it was only 2 outs. I explained to him that we had a catch, a rundown, and then the final out (strike out, if memory serves me correctly). He then stated to me that the runner in the rundown was his batter, who was already out due to the catch. He asked me “How can 1 guy be out twice on a play?” and I replied “I have NO idea, but your in a good spot being up 1 run with 3 outs to go”. I also told him we had two outs on the play, and that the runner created an interference, if it was indeed his batter-runner, by drawing throws to retire him, when he was already out.
#12) There was no official protest, as that was not anything that was ever said to our crew. In order to protest a play at the NBC Tournament, it has to be said “I (we) want to protest”, and a $50 protest fee must be put up in order to do that. At that point, the protest is resolved on the spot (in the NBC), in order to avoid having to resume or replay a game later in the tournament.
#13) Barry and the P.C. Rangers were very gracious and have handled this situation with class. They are quick to point out that they had chances to win the game following the play.
#14) As umpires, we feel bad that we made a mistake, and we regret the fact that we can not review to find out what we did and what we did wrong. We do not know for certain if we took an out, or gave a runner. The men on that crew for that game (and for all of the guys at the tournament) work extremely hard to be the best we can be and to continually improve. It was very unfortunate to have a play like that happen, and it is regretable that it detracted from such a well played, well pitched game at the NBC World Series.
Jeff- Thank you for allowing me the time and forum to detail the events in such a long running email. I hope someone will see this and realize there was no malice intended, and I hope the facts pertaining to the play help people realize it wasn’t a “simple or eggregious mistake” by the umpires, rather a highly complex problem that compounded itself several times over during that inning. That play has been discussed with some of the best and most veteran umpires in the USA, and no one has heard of a play and series of events and confussion such as we faced that night.
Regards,
Greg
Wow. I’m impressed! That was a very fair and thorough explanation of the events that transpired. Kudos to the ump for a) checking the blog in case the play in question was mentioned, and b) writing eleventy-hundred sentences to try and clarify the situation. I sincerely think that was gracious and fair-minded. Sounds like it was mass confusion of nobody’s fault, and just one of those things that happen. The “instant replay” option wouldn’t have even been an option back in my day! Thanks for an interesting follow-up.