Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LMan
Yes, but Smith was already at 1B when that play began. That's a clear case of a timing play.
I'm speaking of R3, 2 outs - grounder to F6. The B/R beats the throw but oversteps 1B, (R3 scores in the interim) U1 correctly signals safe at 1B, then there is an appeal at 1B before (now) R1 returns to the bag.
The approved ruling says that it doesn't matter in this case when R3 crossed the plate - a successful appeal of the B/R before acquiring 1B negates the run:
Since Jones crossed the plate during a play in which the third out was made by the batter runner before he touched first base, Jones' run does not count.
Of course, you have to swallow the premise that the B/R did not 'acquire' 1B when he overstepped it, although the conventional wisdom is that he did (hence the initial safe call).
Is this a contradiction?
|
A ruling and a similar play is discussed in J/R (Chapter 10 - Determining a Run, 1.D(1) and Example D/1, p. 82 in my edition). The interpretation given is that the B/R is required to actually
touch first base in order for the run to score. It may seem like a deviation from "touch or pass," but it is in line with the actual wording of OBR 4.09 (a) (1). The B/R may well have acquired first, but that's not enough, provided, of course, the defence appeals.
Further, OBR also has an approved ruling to 4.09, whereby a batter who hits an apparent grand slam with two out, but fails to touch first and is, on appeal, called out, ends the half-inning with no runs scoring on the play.
Any other authorities have a different opinion?
Andrew