Is ball "dead" after 3rd out of a half inning?
Situation:
R1... 2 outs. Batter hits GAPPER. R1 rounds 3rd, heads home, relay throw to catcher, a SLIDE, a SWIPE TAG attempt, cloud of dust... NO SIGNAL. (Assume: missed tag, missed plate). R1 gets up, moves towards dugout, F2 gets up with ball, sees ump and R1 and takes a step toward R1. Just now F2 notices BATTER-RUNNER take wide turn at third. Catcher throws to third and tag is made on B-R diving into third for THIRD OUT!

a)... Out call at 3rd comes 1 second AFTER R1 touches home. (This has gotta be easy, count this run now!)

b)... Out call at 3rd comes JUST PRIOR to R1 returning and touching home.
Do WE allow this retouch... or is the BALL dead? Do we allow a "4th out appeal?" Does catcher have to go get the ball, and make the appeal?

This situation is almost exactly the same as NAPBL 3.4, example 1. The number of outs really doesn't matter.

The ball is not dead--the ball is never dead just because a third out is recorded. I'd give you a reference, but there is none; this is an interpretation of omission--that is, nowhere in the OBR does it state that the ball is dead on the third out.

The question then becomes, what if the runner goes to retouch after the third out and the defense tries to tag him out? If the ball had stayed near the plate, we wouldn't have any problems, because the out just becomes a normal out (NAPBL 3.3). But if we allow the runner to retouch, as we always must, we then create a situation where the fielders are playing for a normal tag out with three outs already! (an aside: J/R clarifies that "fourth out plays" may be non-appeal plays (J/R 10-II, pg 59), but I don't think this is one of them.) Something is wrong because once the runner attempts to regain home plate, he no longer has "reached" home plate and must be tagged out under the normal tag-out rule (OBR 7.08c). But there's three outs, so this is all ridiculous. This leads us to say that the run does NOT score, without the need for an appeal. But does this then imply:

1) If this runner tries to regain and touch home, he is considered never to have scored. (NAPBL 3.3) He cannot score now because there are three outs.
2) If this runner does not try to regain and touch home, he DID reach home and scores unless an appeal is upheld (NAPBL 3.3).

This is ridiculous! We are penalizing a runner for trying to correct his mistake! I don't see any way out of this. Help!

P-Sz

[Edited by Patrick Szalapski on Jan 13th, 2001 at 12:42 PM]

Read the rulebook, read NAPBL, read J/R, read JEA, read Brinkman-----then go on the field and do your job.
And may the force be with you, Luke.

I got this as a time play, 3rd out recorded before a runner scored.At this point, result of no run is gonna be the same, appeal for fourth out upheld, that is...

So, what if the runner passed home and went directly into his dugout? What do you have then?

P-Sz

I'm going to go out on a limb (saw in hand) and say that if the runner, who had missesd the plate, tries to return and touch home, but does nottouch home before the third out is recorded, then the run does not score, but if he goes straight to the dugout and the defense does not appeal the miss of the plate, then the run scores.

There are two basic reasons for this view on my part. The first is that the rules/accepted interpretations state that if the runner tries to return and touch the plate, he is in fact trying to gain the base and must be tagged by the defense just as though he was approaching the plate from 3rd. If he touches the plate prior to the 3rd out the run scores, if he doesn't make it back to the plate prior to the third out, the run doesn't count. The rules also state that if he misses the base and doesn't try to return, then he can be called out on appeal, and a advantageous 4th out appeal can nullify the run if the defense is clever.

The second reason that I would rule this way is far more pragmatic. If the runner tries to return and touch the plate, he has, by his actions, announced for everyone to see that he missed the plate in the first place so his run was not legally scored prior to the third out being recorded, therefore I feel justified in not scoring the run. If he doesn't try to return, but instead heads for the dugout, then his actions imply that he believes the run was scored, so unless the defense is astute enough to appeal the missed base, I'm going to give him credit for the run.

Now finally as to when the ball becomes dead after the 3rd out (as clearly it must or we wouldn't have to put it back into play to begin the next half inning) I would contend that the ball becomes dead after the defensive team has left the field after the 3rd out since that is the point at which an appeal can no longer be made. Up until that point, the ball must remain alive to allow any possible appeals.

So, what if the runner passed home and went directly into his dugout? What do you have then?

Patrick if a runner does not come back and try and re-touch in a reasonable amount of time - We have an out as he is deemed to have abandoned the basepath. OBR 7.08j/k.

In FED this is spelled out. In FED end of playing action runner fails to touch or retouch we declare runner out.

Pete Booth

I agree! That is the ruling that is apparent from everything we know. But here's the problem: we are PENALIZING the runner who tries to correct his mistake, and he has no chance of actually correcting the mistake! In fact, by trying to correct his error, he completely and with no chance of reprieve gives up the run. This happens at no other base and in no other situation, and it bugs me!

And Peter, I can appreciate your humor, but I hope you don't mislead anyone else on the board. Let it be known that the runner can NOT be called out for abandonment after he has passed home--unless he never touches the plate, returns toward third, and THEN abandons.

P-Sz

Not abandonment
 

Reconsider this. The runner who as missed home and enters dugout CANNOT be called out for abandonment. He missed home, but he "reached" it. He has no bases to run or abandon. He can only get out on an appeal.

Re: Not abandonment
 

You should check out the last four characters of Peter's message, quoted above.

P-Sz

When is Ball Dead ?
 

Moose's initial question concerned when is the ball dead?

We know the ball must be alive for the defense to appeal to get the advantageous fourth out. Even if the defense wrongly appeals, the ball is live until the ruling on the appeal. So, after the third out, the ball is at least in limbo pending appeal (sort of like the election).

In our situation, it was certainly possible that the defense could attempt to appeal the failure to retouch home. The appeal would be denied because the runner returned to the plate and wasn't tagged.

So, the umpire seems to have two choices in recognizing time. First, treat the the ball as dead on the third out. If the defense actually makes an appeal, then the umpire will then recognize live ball to rule on the appeal. Under that choice, Moose's original analysis would hold true: the runner retouched the plate during dead ball-no run.

The second notion, is to treat the ball as live until the defense has a reasonable opportunity to make an appeal (even wrongly), and then the umpire will recognize time if the defense has not made an appeal. Under that notion, the runner retouched the plate during live ball, but after the third out was recorded.

Same result, but very different reasoning.

Re: When is Ball Dead ?
 

We've established that the ball is not immediately dead on the third out. This is fairly well-accepted; the defense always has a chance to get a "fourth out" play--by appeal, tag, or force--until all infielders leave the field. (OBR 7.10, J/R 10-II, pg 58-59)

As for your second notion, the runners ALWAYS have a chance to touch the plate to correct their mistakes--that is, to prevent the defense from getting an out on appeal. Three outs SHOULDN'T matter. In this case, though, they do: The runner, by returning to the plate, is admitting that he never touched and is like the runner who never reached home--he hasn't scored yet. Since there are three outs, he can't score. BUT, this same runner, who passes the plate and enters the dugout, scores until and unless a "fourth-out" appeal takes place. Do you see how we penalize a runner who is trying to correct his mistake, though in reality, he is not able to correct it?

P-Sz

What are U talking about?
 

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

Please don't post in Secret Code...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by PeteBooth We have an out as he is deemed to have abandoned the basepath. OBR 7.08j/k. You should check out the last four characters of Peter's message, quoted above. P-Sz

Patrick:
I wouldn't call it is a "penalty" to require that the runner who misses home either retouch the plate before he is tagged or before the third out, but I understand your point. There is 1 way to score if you snake into the dugout (defense does not appeal), and 2 ways not to score if you try to retouch (you get tagged or 3rd out is made).

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

Advantageous 4th outs can only come in the form of an appeal, specifically during relaxed action. By inference the ball is live, until the infielders have left the field, after the third out, but only relaxed action can occur. Any attempted advancement or retreat of a runner is ignored. The defense only need to touch home plate to complete the appeal, even if the runner is attempting to touch. This interpretation is an extention of the PBUC's ruling on a runner leaving the dugout to touch home.

EXAMPLE -- R3 misses the plate before the third out, and then attempts to retouch the plate after the 3rd out is made at another base. RULING -- R3's actions after the 3rd out are ignored, and the defense still may appeal R3's missing the plate by only a tag of the base. R3's run is contingent on a successful appeal.

Granted this isn't an official ruling, but I think this interpretation will allow the offense not to "screw" itself into trying to correct a mistake, but will still allow the defense to appeal.

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

Re: What are U talking about?
 

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

P-Sz

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

(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

Jaska-who?????
 

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

GOOD GRIEF!
 

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

Re: Jaska-who?????
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris s

Quote:

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, <b>Rules of Professional Baseball: A Comprehensive Re-Organization and Clarification</b>, written by Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder, most certainly <b>is <i>authoritative</i></b>.

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 <b>official</b> 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 <b>National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues' Manual</b>.

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 <b>authority</b> 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 <b>Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated</b>, 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 <b>direct</b> conflicts between J/R and the NAPBL Manual. Please share.

Hope you're well, chris.

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

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 <b>due to running infractions.</b> 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)

Re: Re: Jaska-who?????
 

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 <b>authority</b> 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 <b>Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated</b>, 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 <b>direct</b> conflicts between J/R and the NAPBL Manual. Please share.

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

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?

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

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]

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

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

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.

Yep.
 

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

Hayes</b>

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]

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?

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.