Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
The problem case is the one where the passing happens first. Then, as I've said, the catch is an advantageous 4th out. It's advantageous because it cancels the run that would have scored if we count the passing as the third out.
By rule, then, we ignore the passing, BR is out on the catch, and no run scores because BR did not reach 1B safely.
What made me think twice on this play is that it's unusual that the "advantageous 4th out" occurs on the same player who made the (apparent) 3rd out. But nothing in the rules prevents that.
|
I think you're on shaky ground here. A 4th out is, by black and white rule, only allowed if it is an appeal out. Roughly half of the respected authorities (J/R and sometimes the Wendlestedt school) allow the 4th out generally, while Evans demands an appeal.
There is no good reason to think of this situation as a fourth out. There are a number of situations in which outs are deemed to have occurred or not occurred retroactively. For example,
- With no runners, batter hits a high fly ball and is obstructed after touching 1st. If the ball is caught, B/R is out.
- On pretty much any action in which a batted ball becomes an uncaught foul, runners return, and the batter returns to the box. This includes a B/R interfering with a fielder after the ball became foul, and of course, the B/R passing another runner.
So in addition to passing (or passing with less than two outs), other situations exist in which apparent outs are disregarded.
On a caught fly ball, when is the batter out? (he asks rhetorically) Well, we know with two outs, and a runner crosses the plate and B/R touches first before the ball is caught, that the run doesn't score even if no passing occurred. And the run doesn't score because the third out was made [4.09 (1)] "by the batter-runner before he touches first base;"
From this we can infer that the B/R is effectively (but determined retroactively) out before he reaches first. To maintain consistency in our rulings, if there is passing, the catch is still the third out because it effectively happened before the passing. The passing "never happened." [There is a pretty good case to be made that the out happened at the moment the ball was hit, but other rule codes and interpretations dodge the issue by modifying 4.09(a) to say "safely reach first". That avoids the need to think in terms of timing. Similarly, we don't need to worry about exactly when a batted ball becomes foul if interference is called.]
Bob Pariseau wrote on eteamz a few years ago about the necessity to retroactively determine outs. I can't find the post now, but as I recall, he was able to list quite a few situations in which this is required.