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

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by 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."

Your "fourth out" above is no out at all. The force on R2 to third was removed when R1 passed him, so R2's "out" would be an non-force out. This out has no bearing on what runs could score, so the out is not called. The BR, though, must still touch first for the run to score, by J/R's interpretation. They could then get him out for the "fourth" out of the inning, actually the third out replacing the out for passing.

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?

Well, regardless of J/R, the ball IS live after the third out, so they can execute any "fourth out" appeals, which we all know and love. However, J/R is saying that, with three outs, a live ball could still be used to put out other runners to cancel runs.

I think the "injured BR" was just put in there as a plausible reason why runner didn't run to first.

P-Sz

[GarthB]

Hayes:

Actually, what I put together came from two different umpires who had talked to Evans. Dave was one. Other than sequencing, it appears that your re-post of Dave's message and the compilation that I put together are in agreement.

In regards to hearsay: if Dave is testifing to what he was told, that's not hearsay. That's direct testimony and admissable. If Dave is testifying to what someone else said they were told, that's hearsay.

GB

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Your "fourth out" above is no out at all. The force on R2 to third was removed when R1 passed him, so R2's "out" would be an non-force out. This out has no bearing on what runs could score, so the out is not called. The BR, though, must still touch first for the run to score, by J/R's interpretation. They could then get him out for the "fourth" out of the inning, actually the third out replacing the out for passing.

Well, regardless of J/R, the ball IS live after the third out, so they can execute any "fourth out" appeals, which we all know and love. However, J/R is saying that, with three outs, a live ball could still be used to put out other runners to cancel runs.

I think the "injured BR" was just put in there as a plausible reason why runner didn't run to first.

P-Sz

Let's make sure we're counting right--

Out 3 -- R1 passes R2 -- this is a timing play, so R3's run scores

Out 4 -- R2 put out at 2B

Out 5 -- BR put out at 1B, negating R3's run

I understand what you're saying, however. It's a moot point if R1's passing occurs before R3 touches home, since it negates the run anyway.

OK, let's take THIS example:

Bases loaded, 2 outs. Batter strikes out, ball gets by F2. R3 scores but R2 is tagged out at the plate. BR now realizes he can run. F2, after tagging out R2, throws to first, but the throw is wild and sails into RF. Meanwhile R1 rounds home and scores, and BR tries for 3B. Throw goes out of play, and BR is awarded home.

Obviously nobody is going to score the last 2 runs, but my point is when do we stop the play? To me it's pointless to allow the play to continue either once a play occurs to cancel the run, or there is no opportunity to cancel the run. Why make a runner run if he can't score a run regardless?

That's why I think J/R's play is ONLY for a BR incapacitated before he reaches 1B, because there's really no chance for a play.

[GarthB]

"Good points Garth. Dave's comments are testimony. Your comments are hearsay since they are not direct quotes? ;-)"

Hayes

When I repeated what I heard, I was testifying to hearsay, but it has nothing to do with direct quotes.

Now then, if we wish to take this further, should we begin with a discussion of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, or a review of the chain of evidence? (:^)

GB
(Law school drop out...I decided to find honest work.)


[Edited by GarthB on Jan 16th, 2001 at 10:41 PM]

[DDonnelly19]

Again, what's the relevance of the injured BR? That information is useless unless J/R is implying that an incapacitated BR can be ruled out and have it supercede previous outs to cancel any runs.

Maybe we need clarification from PBUC on what exactly they're ruling on -- injured players being put out or advantageous 4th outs in general?

[Bfair]

Hayes, are you telling me Carl has checked this out and J/R is right that any advantageous 4th out obtained (such as from a force or BR failing to reach first) and not just 4th outs obtained on appeals are recognized in order to cancel out runs ????

That was position I had taken on McGriff's and backed off after some of the factors brought out by other posters. Right now I feel very certain that I don't have a clue.