Is ball "dead" after 3 outs... Situation

[PeteBooth]

Perhaps FED does have the best answer. Retouch (successfully) or you are out.

Couldn't agree with you more - There's no guess work using FED rules - You do not touch - end of playing action - you are out.


Pete Booth

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
What are you talking about? You mean the rule quoted by Pete... OK....it requires an APPEAL. So my post was correct.

Peter wrote a "j/k" at the end of his message, signifying "just kidding."

P-Sz

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19
Advantageous 4th outs can only come in the form of an appeal, specifically during relaxed action.

I'll have to say that you are wrong, here. Please see Jaksa/Roder, Chapter 10, section II (pg 59) for an interpretation and example of a non-appeal "fourth out" play. In short, "fourth out" plays are NOT limited to appeals.

However, you may be right in saying that a runner can not correct a missed base after three outs. Perhaps someone who knows for sure might help us out.

P-Sz

[Bfair]

(Half) Inning ended with 3rd out. The only thing to recognize is appeal(s) if made. Ball remains live as it must for any potential appeal to occur. Act of runner returning to touch missed base means nothing after inning has ended (as any runner touching home after 3rd out means nothing). Sounds like runner should have either touched home initially or returned to touch it prior to 3rd out occurring. I see no major question here.

Just my opinion,

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Bfair
(Half) Inning ended with 3rd out. The only thing to recognize is appeal(s) if made. Ball remains live as it must for any potential appeal to occur. Act of runner returning to touch missed base means nothing after inning has ended (as any runner touching home after 3rd out means nothing). Sounds like runner should have either touched home initially or returned to touch it prior to 3rd out occurring. I see no major question here.

Just my opinion,

Again, non-appeal fourth outs may also occur after the third out--do you disagree with the Jaksa-Roder interpretation? However, you may be right about the fact that runners may not correct baserunning mistakes when three are out. I'm still not sure why, though, other than it would make it a lot simpler.

P-Sz

[chris s]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Again, non-appeal fourth outs may also occur after the third out--do you disagree with the Jaksa-Roder interpretation? However, you may be right about the fact that runners may not correct baserunning mistakes when three are out. I'm still not sure why, though, other than it would make it a lot simpler.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
J/R is NOT authorotative literature. I have seen some of thier interps directly in conflict with NAPBL, on the info provided on these boards. I do not own J/R, but have NAPBL. 3 friends of mine who work proball have never even heard of J/R. I'm gonna find out tonite, we start our fed meetings, on this play. It is quite interesting.....
P-Sz

[DDonnelly19]

I could have sworn this was argued on another board (maybe McGriffs?) The concensus was that 4th outs can ONLY come during an appeal. I think that Warren's response can sum this all up:

Posted by Warren Willson on January 02, 2001 at 23:21:59:

In Reply to: Re: Fourth out - appeal? posted by Hayes Davis on January 02, 2001 at 22:03:57:

: : There was a GREAT question over on the softball board that I would like see discussed here under OBR.

: : Mike Rowe wrote:
: : R2 and R3 on second and third base respectively, two outs.

: : Batter strikes out, but the ball gets by F2. R3 scores, but R2 is tagged out at the plate. BR failed to run to 1B. After tagging R2
: : out, the catcher throws to 1B for the fourth out.

: : Does R3's run count?

: : The problem here seems to stem from the idea that the the inning conclude when the 3rd out was registered at the plate. And, it seems, the rules only allow for an advantageous fourth out on an appeal. Is it a proper appeal to say that the BR didn't advance to first?

: +++++

: Dave,

: I don't know if this helps or not but here's an opinion from Jaksa/Roder that is similar.

: Hayes

: The third out of an inning does not prevent the defense from getting a fourth out, an out that is advantageous in that it takes away an apparent run. Such advantageous fourth out supersedes the former third out and becomes, for all purposes, the third out.

: EXAMPLE:
: Not an appeal: Bases loaded, two outs. The batter singles and R2 is thrown out at home for the third out. The batter has been injured and is unable to advance to first, prompting the defense to throw to first against him. This is an advantageous fourth out and supersedes the former third out, and no run can score.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Hayes, I guess you've just found another example of why the NAPBL/PBUC says Jaksa/Roder is definitely NOT to be used for official interpretations. My understanding is they feel J/R is so full of errors that it simply can't be relied upon in that way, and this doosey just proves the point.
What is proposed here isn't an "apparent" 4th out, it's an ACTUAL 4th out and definitely NOT supported by the rules. Once the 3rd out is made the inning is over and runners can't score, and no more put outs can be made except on appeal [see OBR 2.00, 4.09(a), 5.07 and 7.10 Note] The ONLY place in the rule book where an advantageous 4th out is ever mentioned and considered is in OBR 7.10, which deals solely with APPEALS!

Man, this thread just gets weirder and weirder!

Cheers.

http://www.gmcgriff.com/refonline/ww...ages/3354.html

[BJ Moose]

Huh... dude.... he was citing the SECTIONS J and K (why I don't know).

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Peter wrote a "j/k" at the end of his message, signifying "just kidding."

P-Sz [/B]

[Jim Porter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris s

J/R is NOT authorotative literature. I have seen some of thier interps directly in conflict with NAPBL, on the info provided on these boards. I do not own J/R, but have NAPBL. 3 friends of mine who work proball have never even heard of J/R.

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. The book to which you are referring, Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Re-Organization and Clarification, written by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder, most certainly is authoritative.

I don't know know who your three friends are, but if they don't know who Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder are, then try asking them if they've ever heard of the Joe Brinkman Umpire School. Mr. Jaksa was the Primary Rules Instructor for that school from 1987-1989, and Mr. Roder assisted him.

The "J/R", the book as it is known on the Internet (as coined by Carl "Papa C" Childress,) is definitely not official for any league that I am aware of. By, "official," I mean that a governing body has decided that the book may be used by its league(s), by its umpires, and in making protest decisions. The only such arrangement I am aware of exists with Minor League Baseball and the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues' Manual.

In the youth league world, Little League comes the closest to making NAPBL Manual official, with reports of clinic instructors passing the word down from Williamsport. As long as the NAPBL does not directly conflict with Little League rules, it can be used for official interpretations and in making protest decisions. It ain't written anywhere, but that's how "everyone" understands it.

I am unaware of any other amateur league, or governing body, which has specifically declared the NAPBL as, "official." Beyond the rulebook, there's nothing.

So, J/R is as authoritative as they come. What authority would one look to for information about professional baseball rules? Two former instructors of a professional umpires' school, perhaps?

The only authority, in my opinion, that supercedes that of J/R would be Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated, and only because of the historical information Mr. Evans provides. Otherwise, I would consider them of equal, authoritative weight.

I would be enlightened to learn of all the direct conflicts between J/R and the NAPBL Manual. Please share.

Hope you're well, chris.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

The only authority, in my opinion, that supercedes that of J/R would be Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated, and only because of the historical information Mr. Evans provides. Otherwise, I would consider them of equal, authoritative weight.

I would be enlightened to learn of all the direct conflicts between J/R and the NAPBL Manual. Please share.
[/B]

I'll have to agree with Jim, here. I would be glad to throw out certain parts of J/R if I found where they clearly contradict NAPBL and/or OBR. However, I can recall only one time where we got into a discussion over a contradiction between J/R and JEA, and that was never fully resolved. (It was with Gee on eteamz last March, IIRC.)

I don't know who says "J/R is so full of errors" or why, but I can't find evidence of that. What I do know is that the non-appeal fourth out makes sense and is not contradicted by the OBR. I have also seen no other authoritative opinion to throw it out, and I even recall some of our "board authorities" supporting it.

P-Sz

[Bfair]

Patrick, you nailed problem on the head. Is an advantageous non-appeal 4th out allowed. J/R , as quoted elsewhere, seems to indicate it is. Whereas, it is my understanding that the rulebook pretty specifically states the inning (half) is over after the 3rd out. My position was strong with J/R on McGriff's , but I yielded to the explanation of Warren and others.

Let's look at reason. Two out, R2 & R3 and batter hits mid speed roller to F6 who elects to throw to 3rd. BR stumbles out of box and sees ump call R2 out (for 3rd out) at third base. Why should he continue to run???? Rules say inning is over after 3rd out. Again, why run. It is possible here that R3 crossed plate before 3rd out. Good example, I think to go against J/R here. Of course we all know run can't score if 3rd out made at first base, but it wasn't. If they played at first it would now be 4th out. Book goes on to recognize cases of 4th due to running infractions. BR hasn't made running infraction, there was just no need for him to go there due to 3rd out occurring. Warren changed my mind on this one, and I will stick him (but only to show that I CAN change position when good reason is shown).

Just my opinion, (as amended by Warren)(Aussie Grin)

[chris s]

SNIP, Respectfully!

Thank you Jim, I am doing well, you?? You are correct in that J/R is authorotative. I meant, "not oficial". Discrepensys, as I stated, have been learned from comments from on the boards. My friends all happened to go to Wendelstadts, so that Brinkman school thing is mute.
On to your "beyond the rule book there is nothing". You are sooooo right! Try getting a response from PONY concerning thier interp source.





I am unaware of any other amateur league, or governing body, which has specifically declared the NAPBL as, "official." Beyond the rulebook, there's nothing.

So, J/R is as authoritative as they come. What authority would one look to for information about professional baseball rules? Two former instructors of a professional umpires' school, perhaps?

The only authority, in my opinion, that supercedes that of J/R would be Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated, and only because of the historical information Mr. Evans provides. Otherwise, I would consider them of equal, authoritative weight.

I would be enlightened to learn of all the direct conflicts between J/R and the NAPBL Manual. Please share.

Hope you're well, chris. [/B][/QUOTE]

[DDonnelly19]

How about the adventageous "5th out?"

Bases loaded, 2 out. Popup to F6. R3 breaks for home on contact; R2 holds near 2B, thinking there's 1 out. R1 breaks for 2B. F6 drops the ball. R1 passes R2, but after R3 scores. 3 outs. R2 then is put out while trying to dive back to 2B. 4 outs. Now the defense realizes that the BR has stopped on his way to 1B, thinking the play is over. Ball thrown to 1B, and the BR is out at 1B, therefore cancelling the run on the advantageous "5th out."

Here's what I don't understand -- is J/R advocating keeping the ball live after the 3th out, so that the defense may have a chance to cancel any run scored during the play? In the example given, the BR injured himself on his way to 1B, so is J/R saying that this special circumstance (runner is incapacitated before the 3rd out is made) allows the 4th out to be made?

[PeteBooth]

I think we are trying to complicate things.

First I believe everyone (even Grandma) knows that if B1 is put out before he reaches first base safely - NO RUN CAN SCORE - It doesn't matter what else happened. So the defenses job if they do not want any runs to score is to try and make certain that B1 doesn't reach first safely.

Also a Team only gets three outs - PERIOD.

Now the situation described above r2,r3 - 2 outs - slow roller to F6 - who then makes a play on r2 at third - If r3 scores before r2 is put out - run counts - as by definition this is a Time Play - B1 can stand at the plate all day if he wants to - the run still counts because the defense chose to play on r2 as opposed to B1.

If it's a game tying or winning situation, the fielder has to be aware of this.

The way I view an appeal play is in effect like a Time Warp (for you Trekies). During live action the defense can NEVER ASSUME (at least that's what I was taught), that an umpire saw what you saw. When there are multiple runners on base a fielder doesn't have the time to check with Blue and then make a subsequent play.

Therefore, when the dust settles and a Team appeals - we go back in Time to see if the appeal (if upheld) cancels any run that scored. For all practical purposes no-one is going to appeal unless it effects the score.

Therefore, an appeal effects the score only - even though the wording is "advantageous 4th out" it is not in effect a 4th out but merely an appeal to cancel a run. If you had a 4th out then the batting order would change.

IMO OBR should have a separate section on Appeals - Clear and concise wording with examples given similiar to a textbook if you will.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Jim, Patrick, Hayes:

The, or at least a, reference to J/R as "being full of errors", was attibuted to Jim Evans by an attendee at his Desert Classic. The comment came in reference to a question posed to Jim about who now may own the rights to the J/R since it was done, as was the understanding, as a "work for hire". Written work done under this arrangement usually give the empoyer, at the time, Brinkman, control of the copyright.

Since Evans now owns what was Brinkman's, the discussion, I believe was concerning whether or not Jim would attempt to exercise any control over the J/R.

He responded that it he wouldn't, partially because the J/R was too full of errors.

I am not joining in to take one side or another. I cannot quote the errors that were alleged. I remember only the conversation.

GB

[Edited by GarthB on Jan 16th, 2001 at 10:17 PM]