Advantageous 4th Out

[DG]

The inning is over when the third out is made. Therefore, no additional base running is legal. 7.10d allows the defense to get an advantageous 4th out. The offense can not remove their opportunity to do that because "the inning is over". If the BR fell down, and the third out made before he reached 1B then he can't keep running to 1B because "the inning is over".

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by DG
The inning is over when the third out is made. Therefore, no additional base running is legal. 7.10d allows the defense to get an advantageous 4th out. The offense can not remove their opportunity to do that because "the inning is over". If the BR fell down, and the third out made before he reached 1B then he can't keep running to 1B because "the inning is over".

First of all, while I do not, at first examination, agree with your ruling, I have no particular logical problem with it. I can see holding that the rule allows D to continue to "play", notwithstanding that the "inning is over." However, the response to the inevitable question: WHY NOT allow the runner to "respond" to the D's continuing action sounds uncomfortably close to "because I say so!" [Not that I am unalterably opposed to that- ask my kids] What I would like to know is, do you have any supporting authority [official / authoritative interpretation; recognised precedent] for the ruling, other than your opinion?

I am also curious, since your example:

If the BR fell down, and the third out made before he reached 1B then he can't keep running to 1B because "the inning is over

seems to contradict the example and ruling cited by a fellow a few posts back.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 29th, 2005 at 07:01 PM]

[Roger Greene]

I found the cite for the BR needing to continue to advance to first after the 3rd out.

See 2005 BRD, Section 3. Re: OBR- Official interp 4-3 "If the defense gains a third out during play, but the batter runner has not yet reached first, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out." (Mike Fitzpatrick, Director PBUC, 1/17/2001)

I would argue, absent a cite that indicated otherwise, that if a runner who has not been put out must continue to and touch 1st to prevent an appeal after a 3rd out has been made, then a runner could attempt to correct a baserunning error before an appeal is made for a 4th out.

Roger Greene

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
I found the cite for the BR needing to continue to advance to first after the 3rd out.

See 2005 BRD, Section 3. Re: OBR- Official interp 4-3 "If the defense gains a third out during play, but the batter runner has not yet reached first, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out." (Mike Fitzpatrick, Director PBUC, 1/17/2001)

I would argue, absent a cite that indicated otherwise, that if a runner who has not been put out must continue to and touch 1st to prevent an appeal after a 3rd out has been made, then a runner could attempt to correct a baserunning error before an appeal is made for a 4th out.

Roger, that's a non sequitur. The rule allows the defense to continue to play after the third out. The rationale for that is that the offense made an error prior to the third out. The rule permits the defense to capitalize on that error; it does not permit the offense the opportunity to rectify the error.

This thinking leads to a general answer to the question of the thread up to this point: why is the defense but not the offense permitted to play on after the third out? The answer is, I think, that the offense made the error, and the defense should not be prevented from taking advantage of that error because they played well elsewhere on the field (by recording the third out).

I would not allow BR to go back to first or to continue to first. The "defense may play on him" does not entail that he may do anything to prevent that play.

[Roger Greene]

I'll tink I'll stand by the logic of my argument until a cite can be provided to establish otherwise. There were a lot of us that were suprised by the ruling I provided.

Roger Greene

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
I'll tink I'll stand by the logic of my argument until a cite can be provided to establish otherwise.

You can stand by it, but it's the logic I'm complaining about. Your citation permits the defense to act after the end of an inning. It does not say that the offense may do so. It says nothing about the runner. Where are you getting the idea that BR can continue to run after the third out? Do you have a citation concerning the runner?

[DG]

The offense's time at bat is over when 3 putouts are made. The half innning is over. See definitions 2:00 INNING and 2:00 OUT. 7.10d ALLOWS the defense to make an advantageous 4th out appeal on a play in which the 3rd out was made. The "appeal" takes precedence in determining the 3rd out. There is no rule that allows the offense to do anything, except change sides, after a 3rd out.

[Roger Greene]

Sigh, I thought the logic was obvious.

The cite requires the BR to continue to run and touch 1st base after the third out was obtained elsewhere on the basepath, or to be subject to a 4th out appeal.

A group of us argued that since the inning was over, the BR was not required to touch the 1st base. (I can't recall if this was on a public or private forum, but it led to Childress requesting the official interpertation.)

Carl received official interpertations from Fed(Hopkins), NCAA (Fetchiet) and OBR (Fitpatrick) which stated that unless the BR touched 1st base before the defense appealed, despite the fact that the 3rd out has "ended" the inning, he was subject to appeal.

Therefore the simple logic is that the BR must proceed to touch first even though the inning is over. Therefore the offense must continue to run the bases after the 3rd out. To understand otherwise (as you propose) would mean that we would still call the BR out on appeal if the 3rd out had been obtained BEFORE he touched first! That would be a new rule to define when a run could score!!!!

Since the BR by official interpertation must continue to run the bases even if the 3rd out has been obtained elsewhere, your contention that the ofense has no authority to run the bases after the 3rd out is obviously incorrect. (The official ruling indicates otherwise.)

If the BR has the responsibility to continue to run after the 3rd out, why would that be changed if he was retreting to touch 1st? Why would any other runner be treated otherwise? The logic extending the the ruling to runners other than the BR would be found in the precedent set by the Brigman Ruling extending 7.08k to all bases instead of just home base.

Further support to the logic would be the simple statement that the offense is not prohibited by rule to correct the baserunning error, therefore what is not prohibited must be allowed.

Since a number of us (the majority in the discusssion in 2001 as I recall) were suprised that the offense had a responsibility to continue to run bases after the 3rd out, I think we are bound by the official interpertation that they do unless and until the powers that be decide otherwise.

In 18 years I have not had this play. I'm hoping that I don't in the next 18.

Roger Greene



[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2005 at 09:17 AM]

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by DG
The offense's time at bat is over when 3 putouts are made. The half innning is over. See definitions 2:00 INNING and 2:00 OUT. 7.10d ALLOWS the defense to make an advantageous 4th out appeal on a play in which the 3rd out was made. The "appeal" takes precedence in determining the 3rd out. There is no rule that allows the offense to do anything, except change sides, after a 3rd out.

DG, here is the problem I have with your reasoning [I know this is verging on TWP territory, but bear with me]:

R2, R3, 2 out.
Ball is hit over the head of SS, outfielder grabs it on the hop. For reasons we need no explore, the D plays on R2 & tags him just after R3 scores, but before BR reaches 1st.

By your logic, BR cannot legally continue to advance to touch 1st, true? Thus the D may appeal for the "Advantageous 4th out" EVEN AFTER BR, in fact, reaches the base, since his continued advance after the 3d out was recorded was invalid due to the inning being "over".

Doesn't seem right to me; and in the absence of official or authoritative ruling to the contrary, I'd be inclined [if this ever actually came up in a game] to rule that a runner who is not otherwise out may continue to run bases to complete or correct baserunning obligations, notwithstanding the recording of the 3d out, for as long as the defense is still capable of making an appeal for an advantageous out if the runner(s) fail to complete or correct those obligations. Thus:

*BR may continue to 1st [or return to 1st to correct a miss], although 3rd Out recorded on a non-forced runner [R2, R3: R3 scores, R2 thrown out @ 3d - count the run if BR touches 1st before D appeals]

*BR, gunned down @ 2nd for out #3 MAY NOT return to correct a miss of 1st, the appeal of which which would
negate run(s) scored on the play.

As before, if there is persuausive authority or precedent to the contrary, I'll certainly follow that: but you have not supplied any so far.

PS, FWIW, I tend to agree w/ mb that Roger's citation does not, by it's specific language, require the ruling I would make: neither does it support the contrary position.

[Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 30th, 2005 at 04:25 PM]

[DG]

I agree that BR may continue to run to 1B, but if he does not there could be an advantageous 4th out by the defense that could nullify a run. But I have seen no case play or ruling that would allow a runner who has advanced to another base to return to a missed base to erase a base running error, and thus an advantageous 4th out, after the 3rd out is made, especially a runner who was putout for the 3rd out, which was the original post.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
PS, FWIW, I tend to agree w/ mb that Roger's citation does not, by it's specific language, require the ruling I would make: neither does it support the contrary position.
[/B]

Right: Roger wanted to stand on the "logic" of his original citation, but he added substantive information in his most recent post. If that's right, then authorities at most levels have ruled that BR CAN continue to run (to prevent a 4th out) even after the end of the inning. And cbfoulds's case offers a reasonable basis for ruling that way. He also helpfully distinguishes between allowing BR (or another runner) to continue running after 3 outs and disallowing a runner to continue after THAT RUNNER is out.

I also agree with DG that we could distinguish between (a) BR continuing to run to 1B after 3 are out, and (b) R returning to a previous base to correct a baserunning error. Both might be motivated by a desire to prevent a 4th out, but that would not mean that both are allowed. In (a) we have a runner FINISHING his task, and in (b) we have a runner CORRECTING his task. One might be allowed after 3 are out and the other not; DG seems to be raising the question of whether allowing (a) entails allowing (b), and I think that the answer is no.

I'm inclined to allow (a) but not (b) on the grounds that in (a) the offense has committed no infraction. But it would be good to know whether both are allowed by authoritative rulings. (And Roger, I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't see the relevance to this question of 7.08k, which concerns whether the tag for a missed base must be applied to the base or the player.)

I have no problem accepting authority and am glad to learn of an authoritative ruling on the topic. I apologize for not having been on the board in 2001 when the topic came up originally. Thanks!

[Edited by mbyron on Jan 30th, 2005 at 08:28 PM]

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by DG
I agree that BR may continue to run to 1B, but if he does not there could be an advantageous 4th out by the defense that could nullify a run. But I have seen no case play or ruling that would allow a runner who has advanced to another base to return to a missed base to erase a base running error, and thus an advantageous 4th out, after the 3rd out is made, especially a runner who was putout for the 3rd out, which was the original post.

Neither have I seen any case play or ruling that would prohibit a runner [who is not otherwise out] from erasing a baserunning error/ 4th out situation, nor have you supplied one [I've asked twice - I think we may take it as given that there are none].

As for the original post, recall that I was one of those who held that the putout runner could NOT return, for the precise reason that he was ALREADY OUT: I argued only with the proposition that it was necessary to engage in any logical gymnastics about rules specifing what team was on offense or defense at the time, or when an inning ends.

[mcrowder]

DG and mbyron, your argument is circular and not logical. There is nothing in the rules prohibiting a runner from correctly performing his baserunning duties after a third out has been made, and there is no place in the rulebook where it states that a baserunner cannot continue to run his bases legally (whether forward or backward) in order to prevent an advantageous out.

You seem to understand that it's absurd to not allow the Batter-runner to complete his responsibility for running to first base to avoid a 4th out. However, the rules you are using to deny a runner who has missed a base also, if taken alone (as you are doing) prevent the BR from doing just that.

Then you make a spurious claim that the BR can continue, but not another runner (again, without basis).

So, according to your logic, you would allow a 4th out in this sitch:

Bases loaded, 2 out, full count. Runners moving, but R2 got a huge jump and is motoring. Grounder to short - R1 assumes he's out and slows. SS sees R2 motoring around third and mistakenly fires home to get him out, after R3 had legally scored. R1 and BR have not yet reached their bases when R2 is tagged out at home.

I think we would all agree that common sense tells us R1 and BR can continue to their bases.

But by the rules you've quoted, tangled, and misused, the inning is over and R1 CANNOT continue to 2nd --- and even if he does, for some reason, defense is allowed to appeal him at 2nd. That's absurd, but your "logic" tells us it's true.

I believe you are misusing a rule that is intended for solely administrative purposes (i.e. game time limits, managerial pitcher visits, etc) that tells us the half-inning is over when the 3rd out is made. Then you say an exception is made (without citing the book telling us this) ONLY for the defense and ONLY so that they can get an advantageous 4th out, yet deny offense an exception on that very same play. Do you intend to tell us that at this point in time we have 2 defenses? Again, absurd.

It is clear when the defense becomes the offense. That is the moment that the offense becomes the defense.

[mcrowder]

I'll add one more absurdity to your logic.

According to you, the offense is no longer the offense when the 3rd out is made. So if, in a case where defense is continuing to play (legitimately) in order to make a 4th out at 1st base, what happens if a player from the dugout catches the relay to 1st base and takes the ball to the mound? By your logic, this player from the dugout is on defense as well, and is within his rights to catch that ball and begin warming up on the mound!

[greymule]

Never thought about a play in which, after 3 outs, a runner had to correct an error to prevent an advantageous 4th out, but I can't see why a runner couldn't do so legally (unless, of course, he had already been put out).

Obviously, if a runner simply rounded 1B but missed it, he could trot a few steps back to correct his error. How far he has advanced past 1B should be irrelevant.