Advantageous 4th Out

[dddunn3d]

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.

[Gee]

Right on the money, in all respects.

[DG]

Originally posted by Gee
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.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by DG

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.

[dddunn3d]

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.

[dddunn3d]

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

[Manny A]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
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.

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

[dddunn3d]

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."

[mcrowder]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally posted by mcrowder
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

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Manny A

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!

[Manny A]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

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

[cbfoulds]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manny A

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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]

[Manny A]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

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

[Roger Greene]

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