|
I can't see nullifying the run, despite the "Henry says" above. I score the run. I have the rulebook on my side (the 3rd out was a timing play, and the runner scored ahead of the out; there cannot be a LIVE ball appeal when the ball is dead (which occurs after a 3rd out)). I have the casebook on my side. When on the field, or when confronting a possible protest (which any good coach would in this sitch), if you have the rulebook and casebook saying one thing, and some guy named Henry that no one else knows (or worse... I would have, "Well, um, I read on the internet where some guy named Mike said that some guy named Henry said ....") - I'm going to land on the side of the rulebook and casebook 100% of the time.
A couple of points, one touched on above:
1) You CANNOT have a live ball appeal during a dead ball period.
2) This ball is no longer live, as we have 3 outs.
3) You can't have a dead ball appeal in this sitch to get an advantageous 4th out, as the 4th out in question here doesn't fall into any of the categories mentioned in that rule.
4) Those of you saying that a force play (or a play on the batter at 1st base) is LIKE an appeal play are really stretching things.
5) If this play was more bang-bang, and not on account of laziness by the batter (which seems to be the motivation of some posters to nullify the run here), the BR might give up upon seeing the true 3rd out made between 2nd and 3rd.
Similar play (nearly identical except for the speed and motivation of the players): R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd. D3K, R1 a speedster comes home and barely scores. R2, less reactive is then thrown out at 3rd as BR is 3 steps from 1st. BR sees the out and goes to the dugout instead of 1st (why would he go to 1st, there are 3 outs). F5 then fires to 1st as F3 touches 1st.
Do you nullify the run here?
You shouldn't - the rules don't justify it. And they don't justify it in the original situation.
|