Well. I'd say that we're getting into "burden tennis" here, knocking the burden of coming up with a rule/ruling/citation back and forth. As I recall, the conversation started with a partial ruling that allowed the defense to play on BR for a 4th out if BR had not reached 1B. From that, Roger seemed to infer that BR could keep running after 3 were out, which didn't follow from the ruling we were given. Then Roger told us of a further ruling (or maybe it was part of the first one) that DOES allow BR to continue running after 3 are out. Fine, I've got no problem, but that was a substantive, not merely logical, addition.

THEN, everyone seems to want to infer from this much that ANYONE on offense can keep running after 3 are out, at least if the runner himself is not yet out. But that doesn't follow from the ruling about BR being allowed to run. It might be TRUE, and it might be the official ruling for various leagues, but it doesn't follow by mere logic.

NOW, my day job is logic, folks, so don't get me started (uh, damn, I'm already started...). But logic isn't really the issue here anyway (grossly abused though it be by mcrowder). The issue is: what's the whole ruling about playing baseball after 3 are out? Some folks want to assume that play just continues, and anyone can do anything as long as they aren't out, because the rules don't say they can't. But come on: usually when 3 are out, that's it, the team that was at bat takes the field and vice versa. So the rules must say that you usually stop running after 3 are out. The 4th out situation is exceptional, and exceptions need special rules/rulings/interpretations.

We have not heard the full ruling here, but just keep getting pieces:
1. the defense can play for an advantageous 4th out.
2. BR can continue to run to 1B to prevent a 4th out there.

Are there more pieces to this ruling? What about a runner who has committed a baserunning infraction? Can he return to correct the error after 3 are out in order to prevent the defense from recording a 4th out? Please don't tell me that "logic" requires allowing this, or that anything here is "absurd." We need a complete and authoritative ruling for an exceptional case that goes beyond the rules for normal play.

Or maybe it's just another damn TWP?

The abuse of logic was intentional, to substantiate why any ruling that allows the defense to continue playing defense, but doesn't allow the offense to continue playing offense, is untenable.

I don't know if this counts as "authoritative" in your book - but I did present this sitch to my local TASO rules guru (this is the guy we call when any of us are stuck on a protest ruling, or wonder in hindsight after a game if we screwed one up).

His short but sweet answer is that the defense is still the defense until they leave the field, and that by default the offense is still the offense. If the defense is still making a play after the 3rd out, the offense can also do anything legal to continue play.

His shorter response to my follow up that some feel that BR is allowed to continue running, but no one else is was as follows: "Preposterous."

I am hoping that you chose my post as a starting place 'cause it illustrates "burden tennis" [my day job is litigation: I get it]; since the rest of what I have written on this topic agrees with what [I think] your post argues: that we need some more definitive rule verbiage or a clear ruling/ precedent before we start taking our positions and setting them in concrete.

Folks who have read my other "contributions" to the 'net umpiring debates will recall that I am not a big fan of pulling 9.01c out of the ball bag to solve every unclear sitch that comes down the pike. However, there are times when there is no other answer available.

In the circumstances being discussed here, I see no clear RULE which solves the problem in all circumstances [well, the original post WAS easy: the runner was already out]. A logical case can be made for the position taken by DG et als., although I disagree with it. In playing "burden tennis", I am merely highlighting that [absent relevent authoritative and complete authority or precedent] we are in 9.01c territory here, and everyone is simply arguing their own opinions: which are proverbially like ***holes - everybody's got one, and they are all full of [sewage].

If there is a clear rule or ruling, I'll follow it. In the absence of "higher authority", I've given the 9.01c ruling I'd make and the basis for it: if it works for you, feel free to use it- no attribution or royalties required. IF not, heck, it's a 9.01c "freebie": pick 'em.

I went back into the archives on eteamz to research a similar subject. There was a huge debate two years ago over there (and perhaps it raged here as well) concerning different interpretations by J/R, PBUC, and Bremigan on the situation where a runner who is forced to a base misses that base, then scrambles back to touch it but gets tagged out before reaching the base. The bottom-line issue dealt with the idea of subsequently appealing that runner for initially missing the base, thereby gaining an advantageous fourth out.

In all the discussion on one of the threads, Pete Booth provided an email quote from Rick Roder that said the following: "I agree (along with many professional umpires I have discussed it with) that the appeal should be allowed, but should only be upheld for an out if R1 never did touch second. If he touched it after being tagged out scrambling back in, R1 would be safe on the appeal and the run would stand. If he never did touch second, the appeal would be upheld (a force out) and the run disallowed."

So I stand corrected, at least according to Roder's interpretation. A runner is allowed to touch a base after three outs are recorded to prevent an advantageous fourth out, even if that runner was the source of the third out.

Geez...I just hope there isn't any obstruction of that runner as he tries to correct his mistake.

Manny

Well, I stand corrected, too: I don't like this ruling any better than DG's, but I KNOW I'm not a big enough dawg to argue w/ Roeder. OK, Rx can continue to run bases to prevent a "4th out" appeal, even if he's the one on whom the 3rd out was recorded.

Not so quick.
 

I remember that huge debate two or three ago that allowed the appeal on a runner that was put out for the third out after failing to touch his base in passing.

What brought it up was Mike Fitzpatrick PBUC's ruling that the appeal would be allowed. What caused the uproar in that play is that if you allow the appeal you are overuling OBR 7.10(d) which Mike Bremigan extended to all bases. That rule simply and clearly says that an appeal is not allowed, before or after the play is completed. You must remember that PBUC does not operate under OBR, they do their own thing.

The last I heard is that WUA (Rick Roder) claims that the umpires are split on the issue. They are also split on allowing a run to score after the third out since there is no rule against it. So much for the WUA. G

We have a ruling that would allow a BR to continue to 1B after the 3rd out to prevent an advantageous 4th out. It would seem logical then to allow any runner who is forced by BR to advance to prevent an adantageous 4th out at another base, say 2B. These rulings are for runners moving forward, who have not made a base running error. But this original post was about a runner putout for the 3rd out at 2B who missed 1B, and it is simply not logical to allow him to return to 1B to correct a base running error to prevent an advantageous 4th out. He should be out and the only question is which out is more advantageous to the defense as the defense is allowed to have an advantage in this case. The only question left in my mind is whether a runner who was not putout for the 3rd out, and is not continuing to run because he is going to 1B or forced to advanced should be allowed to run backwards after the 3rd out to erase his baserunning error before the defense makes an advantageous 4th out. Until I see an AO on this I will plan to rule NOT in the extremely rare event that a runner would make it back to the missed base before the defense makes their appeal. I personally think advantageous 4th out appeals will be made before the affected runner can make it back anyway, so all this discussion is just mental exercise...

[Edited by DG on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 07:20 AM]

It may just be mental exercise - but consider a case where the runner who missed the base had only overrun it by a step or three when the third out was made, and then returned immediately. Do you allow an appeal on this player, and how do you explain it to the coach that even though the player made it back to the missed base before the appeal, you're still calling that runner out.

I'm curious why there seems to be a desire on some people's part to differentiate between a runner moving forward and a runner moving backward on this play. The rulebook makes no mention of a differentiation between these two. It is, of course, admittedly a grey area - but I can't understand why anyone wants to treat forward one way and backward another in absence of a rule telling them to do that.

Makes more sense to treat them both the same. Obviously, I've supported allowing the offense to continue being the offense until the defense is no longer the defense (up to and including the time required to make any 4th out appeals). I don't support the opposite, but the opposite position is certainly more tenable than half one-way, half the other.

I sense a difference between (1) the BR who is tagged out at 2B for the 3rd out trying to return to correct a miss of 1B, and (2) a runner who misses 2B and is tagged out for the 3rd out while scrambling back to touch 2B and then, with his hand on the bag, is appealed for having missed it the first time around.

Unfortunately, it's just a sense. I'm still trying to think of how to define the difference. It seems to me that in case (1) the BR should not be allowed to correct his error. Case (2) is another story, especially since what I always thought was the ruling (not a force out, and no appeal of the missed base allowed) is in dispute.

"SNIP"
"It may just be mental exercise - but consider a case where the runner who missed the base had only overrun it by a step or three when the third out was made, and then returned immediately. Do you allow an appeal on this player, and how do you explain it to the coach that even though the player made it back to the missed base before the appeal, you're still calling that runner out."
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you read OBR 7.10(d), extended to all bases, you will find that an appeal would not be allowed in your play as a tag must be made for the out. Since the third out was made prior to the retag and an appeal os not allowed, the inning is over for both the offense and the defense. G.

In a sane world, yes, Gee.

However, read the previous posts. There are some stating that once the 3rd out is made, the offense immediately becomes the defense, and that runner could not return to the base. I think we'd both agree that if the runner simply missed the base and went on into the dugout, a dead-ball appeal for 4th out would be allowed. The others are trying to say that any action after the 3rd out is ignored (at least for runners going backward) - so in effect, this player who missed the base and made 3 steps would not have retouched, even if he actually did retouch.

I find it a little nuts, but it seems to be what these guys are saying.

Another 4th out??
 

Situation:
Daniel at bat 2-2 count, Baker on first, two out.

As pitch comes in Baker takes off for second, pitch is high and out, but Daniel tries to check, PU calls ball. F2 fires to 2nd to retire Baker(3rd Out) after throwing and during tag asks for appeal of swing to BU. BU says that he did (4th Out), after Coach tears crew a couple of new ones for not checking first. Edwards leads off next inning as this is advantageous to the defense.

Re: Another 4th out??
 

What is the question here? Daniel struck out, doesn't matter what happened at second. Just because the appeal came after I don't think has any bearing.

This play has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but I'll answer it. The batter struck out. Edwards is the next batter. The coach has no options here (even if Daniel was a crappy hitter, Edwards is the next batter).

The only real question is - what is the name of the assistant coach who will be coaching the rest of the game.

Re: Not so quick.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gee
I remember that huge debate two or three ago that allowed the appeal on a runner that was put out for the third out after failing to touch his base in passing.

What brought it up was Mike Fitzpatrick PBUC's ruling that the appeal would be allowed. What caused the uproar in that play is that if you allow the appeal you are overuling OBR 7.10(d) which Mike Bremigan extended to all bases. That rule simply and clearly says that an appeal is not allowed, before or after the play is completed. You must remember that PBUC does not operate under OBR, they do their own thing.

Not true. Professional minor leagues, those served by PBUC, do indeed use OBR. The PBUC manual does not substitute for the rulebook, rather it serves to provide some guidance and interpretations for the rule book.

The last I heard is that WUA (Rick Roder) claims that the umpires are split on the issue. They are also split on allowing a run to score after the third out since there is no rule against it. So much for the WUA. G

While Rick is a nice guy and quite knowledgable, neither he nor the WUA, a labor union, speak for Major League Baseball nor issue official OBR rulings.

Absent an official ruling, we need to review the competing authoritative opinions and decide which makes the most sense within the history, traditions and other rulings of MLB.