Advantageous 4th Out

[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]