Today at work I was explaining to a friend(who is only familiar with the basic rules) how the defense could negate a run by obtaining an advantageous fourth out. I described the following play:

Two outs, R3. B1 hits a solid LD to the gap, R3 scores easily. B1 believes that he can advance to 2B on the hit but F8 makes a career play and cuts down B1 sliding into 2B. Three outs, but B1 missed 1B; F4 realizes this and throws the ball to F3 appealing for the fourth out, negating the run(explaining that no run can score if the last out is by force, etc).

He then asked if B1, after being put out, could return and retouch 1B before the defense realizes that the fourth out opportunity exists, thereby keeping the run. I thought about it and I can't recall ever seeing that point addressed anywhere in the books, on the web, etc. I told him that I would probably rule that a batter/runner could not return to correct a baserunning error after he has been put out, but I would appreciate further input/insight from the more experienced members of this board.

Right on the money, in all respects.

Except technically, the play on the BR at 1B is not a force. Long string of posts on this subject a month or so ago.

OBR 4.09a Exception: "A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base duing a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced; (3) by a proceeding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases."

In your situation , #(1) is applicable.

Yes, I read that thread and know the differences between the various types of put-outs(hence the "etc."). However I spared my friend from a longer discussion on the subject. Besides, he probably would have ended up confused.

I have to admit it was an insightful question, coming from him.

How's this: OBR 5.07 states, "When three offensive players are legally put out, that team takes the field and the opposing team becomes the offensive team." So once three outs are recorded, the offensive team is now the defensive team, and defensive players cannot legally touch bases. There's nothing a base runner can do to prevent an appeal for an advantageous fourth out; otherwise, you'd be allowing more play to take place when the inning is already over.

Manny

RE: OBR 5.07
 

I believe that for third out discussions/fourth out appeals 5.07 is not applicable. OBR 7.10(d) provides that "If the violation occurs during a play which ends a half-inning, the appeal must be made before the defensive team leaves the field." Furthermore, "For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has 'left the field' when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse."

You are right - 5.07 doesn't apply here. If it did, you could also make the argument that the defense is now the offense, and can't make the 4th out appeal (which we know is false). Since the defense is still the defense in cases where they can make an appeal and are still on the field, the offense is by default, still the offense.

So, you're advocating that the retired B1 may still legally return and touch first base to preclude being called out on a fourth-out appeal?

I would argue that, by 5.07, the defense is no longer the defense, just like the offense is no longer the offense. However, there is one exception to 5.07: by rule 7.10(d), the defense is still the defense for the strict purpose of recording a fourth-out appeal. Of course, they lose that status once they leave fair territory. But nothing in 7.10(d) provides the same exception of 5.07 to the offense.

Manny

NO, he's saying that the runner can't return to correct the baserunning error 'CAUSE HE'S ALREADY OUT, for cripe sake. Think horses, not zebras: you don't need any complex interpretation of 5.07 or any other rule: he's out, so he can't lawfully run bases anymore. This ain't all that hard, folks!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

Quote:

NO, he's saying that the runner can't return to correct the baserunning error 'CAUSE HE'S ALREADY OUT, for cripe sake. Think horses, not zebras: you don't need any complex interpretation of 5.07 or any other rule: he's out, so he can't lawfully run bases anymore. This ain't all that hard, folks!

Alright, try this zebra then:

Same play essentially, but add R1 in the mix. B3 hits a gapper, R3 scores easily, but R1 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. B3, who is standing at second base, hears the defense call for a fourth-out appeal at first base because B3 did not touch it. Can B3 run back to first to tag it and remove the appeal attempt?

Remember now, it was R1 who made the third out at home, and B3 was not retired on the play. What prevents him from correcting his base running mistake and thwarting the defense's fourth-out appeal?

Manny

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manny A

Quote:

Originally posted by cbfoulds Quote: NO, he's saying that the runner can't return to correct the baserunning error 'CAUSE HE'S ALREADY OUT, for cripe sake. Think horses, not zebras: you don't need any complex interpretation of 5.07 or any other rule: he's out, so he can't lawfully run bases anymore. This ain't all that hard, folks! Alright, try this zebra then: Same play essentially, but add R1 in the mix. B3 hits a gapper, R3 scores easily, but R1 is thrown out at the plate for the third out. B3, who is standing at second base, hears the defense call for a fourth-out appeal at first base because B3 did not touch it. Can B3 run back to first to tag it and remove the appeal attempt? Remember now, it was R1 who made the third out at home, and B3 was not retired on the play. What prevents him from correcting his base running mistake and thwarting the defense's fourth-out appeal? Manny

Nothing that I can think of: maybe someone else has an idea? Why do I think that you don't want BR to be able to respond to an attempt at a "4th out" appeal by trying to return & touch the missed base? The runner in the original sitch was already out; this BR is NOT out [yet]. Why should the defense be able to continue the action [in order to obtain an advantage], but the offense not be able to respond as they would in any other circumstance? Why is this causing you unhappiness? And in what way is it a zebra?

Are you proposing this "zebra" because you have a genuine concern about the correct ruling to be made if such a thing should happen; or is your original suggestion [of 5.07] and this "question" symptomatic of a craving for umpiring "mental gymnastics" [Tee has another term for it], thereby demonstrating one's "mastery" of the BB rules-arcana domain?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 29th, 2005 at 03:51 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

Quote:

Are you proposing this "zebra" because you have a genuine concern about the correct ruling to be made if such a thing should happen; or is your original suggestion [of 5.07] and this "question" symptomatic of a craving for umpiring "mental gymnastics" [Tee has another term for it], thereby demonstrating one's "mastery" of the BB rules-arcana domain? [Edited by cbfoulds on Jan 29th, 2005 at 03:51 PM]

I have no visions of demonstrating any kind of mastery of anything. dddunn3d provided a situation and asked for a rule cite, and I offered 5.07. You countered with a straightforward reason why--the runner was already out--which I completely agree with, and I simply tweaked the situation so that the runner is not out, and asked a related question. I honestly have nothing to add out of the "rules-arcana" domain other than a straightforward read of 5.07.

Manny

It seems that I remember a discussion on a very similar "zebra" (and I understant the reference) in which the advantageous 4th out was on the BR for failing to continue to 1st base after the 3rd out.

In that case the proper ruling was that the BR needed to touch 1st to prevent the appeal even though the 3rd out had been obtained elsewere. Therefore what would stop him from returning to 1st if he had advanced beyond it?

Roger Greene

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: 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]

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

"SNIP"

"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."
-------------------------------------------
Well I guess PBUC forgot OBR 7.10(d) extended when they allowed an appeal on the runner returning to the base after never leaving the immediate area of that base.

It is written pretty clearly for all to see and it isn't realy too difficult to understand for those that can read, "AN APPEAL IS NOT ALLOWED". Me thinks your reading the same book as Fitzy but it aint the OBR. G.

Not disagreeing w/ you that the enforcement of 7.10d extends to all bases, and that a runner who has not left the immediate vicinity must be tagged [rather than merely appealed] if attempting to return to the missed base.

HOWEVER, I'm looking in my copy of the book, and nowhere in or arround 7.10d do I find the "an appeal is not allowed" in this context. The only place I find those words is that "a request for a second appeal on the same runner at the same base shall not be allowed ....". As I understand it, the 7.10d enforcement extension is not in the OBR itself, but is an official interpretation outside the book. Incorrect?

Lastly, were you making a funny?:
My OBR has Rule 4.09a:
"One run shall score each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning."
That looks to me very much like a rule [actually, there are others, too] against scoring a run after the 3d out.

Again, for the reading impaired, the PBUC manual provides guidance and interpretations of the OBR. It is not a rule book. Gee's example above would, to most people prove just that. It is providing an interpretation.

If, as Gee is presenting, the PBUC was a rulebook, the minor leagues would have damn few rules by which to play and no discussion of definitions and many other rules.

Sometimes aging is not a pretty thing.