I need a ruling - here's the play: R3 on third, R2 on second, two out, ground ball in the hole. R3 scores before R2 is thrown out at third for the third out of the inning. B1, seeing R2 thrown out, does a u-turn back to the dugout to get his glove, and never reaches first base.
Count the run? Or go for the 4th out at first because the BR never touched first, and nullify the run? I can't ignore that in FED, can I? Or can I? And how do I justify what my ruling is?

Reply
 

I don't think that you would count the score because the batter-runner was out on a force play. I believe that any time the third or fourth out is a force play, you nullify the time play and thus the run is nullified. However, I am not sure.

[Edited by Gre144 on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 10:51 PM]

This is a play similar to one in the J/R. It was debated extensively on McGriff's. I called the PBUC and asked Mike Fitzpatrick for a ruling. I didn't wait long. He said that in OBR play, if the defense plays on the BR, making him out at first, R3's run will not score.

In a FED game since there is no appeal, it is -- as you say -- dealer's choice. There's no definitive rule that I know of. Thank goodness the chances the play will happen in real life are about equal to a Democrat beling elected governor of Texas.

My advice: Don't call the BR out and, consequently, count the run. It's almost certain the offensive coach will not know that a team can gain a fourth, "advantageous" out WITHOUT appealing.

This is an excellent question that had little response.

The issue was a heated discussion elsewhere regarding this advantageous 4th out obtained at 1st base (or obtained as a force out) as opposed to a missed base or a base left early (or not retouched) on a caught fly. Carl obtained a recent PBUC ruling different from what most seemed to think it would be. I think the ruling surprised many.

Now, the question is, <u>SHOULD this BR be called out and the run negated based on Fed Rules</u>? I would look at the Penalty as shown for Fed 8-2-(1 thru 5) which states:

<b>PENALTY (ARTICLE 1-5): For failure to touch base <u>(advancing or returning)</u>, or failure to tag up as soon as the ball is touched on a caught fly ball, the runner is out. This is a delayed penalty if not played upon by the defense during same playing action (live ball). <u>After all playing action has ended, the umpire will indicate time-out to call runners out</u>. During playing action, the runner is out if, before returning to each untouched base, the runner is touched by the ball in the hand of a fielder, or the ball is held by a fielder on that missed base (including home plate). In this instance, the out would be called immediately before time is called.</b>

If we now jump to Fed rule 9-1-1 regarding scoring:

<b>SECTION 1 HOW A TEAM SCORES
ARTICLE 1. A runner scores one run each time he legally advances to and touches first, second, third and then home
plate before there are three outs to end the inning.
EXCEPTIONS: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is
made as follows:
a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base; or
b. by another runner being forced out; or
d. when a third out is declared during a play in which an umpire observed a base-running infraction resulting in
a force-out (this out takes precedence if enforcement of it would negate a score); or
e. when there is more than one out declared by the umpire which terminates the half inning, the defensive team
may select the out which is to its advantage as in 2-20-2. Credit the putout to the nearest designated
baseman. EXAMPLE: If second base is involved, credit the second baseman with the putout.</b>

Although I would like to agree with Carl's response in actuality an practicality, I would still question if, indeed, it is per the rules as printed (black vs. white). The BR failed to make it safely to 1st base. Therefore, it would appear that <b><u>by the rules</b> the official should declare the 4th out and negate the run.</u>

We can also look at JJ's initial post and his final question:
<b>Count the run? Or go for the 4th out at first because the BR never touched first, and nullify the run? I can't ignore that in FED, can I? Or can I? <u>And how do I justify what my ruling is? </u></b>

You justify not calling it and not negating the run by realizing:
---the Fed has never made a specific ruling regarding the situation
---likely less than 1% of umpires and far less percentage of players and fans would know the proper ruling
---for the one time in 10 years this play is likely to occur you can sneak by with no one knowing differently

At least that will be the excuse I will use when I fail call it. I think Carl in his response provided the answer that will help you survive on the field, even if that answer is not necessarily by the rules. I agree with Carl.

Just my opinion,

Steve


[Edited by Bfair on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 09:48 AM]

Do I need to say anything else?

Third out
 

The post by carl sums it up, Third Out. This is another excellent example of people over analyzing and creating a situation that does not even exist. The third out was recorded, the run scored. If there is no play on the batter inning is over. Do not go looking for trouble.

Seems to me to be the exact same wording (in essence) as that used by OBR and for which the PBUC ruling was obtained. Is that not correct? So, do you disagree?

Do you choose to use your analogy of interpretation from one set of rules to the other only when you like the outcome?

Therefore, I don't understand your point.

Steve

I'm sorry you don't understand. Let me spell it out.

The PBUC ruling is for professional umpires and those who use the professional code in their adult leagues. It is based on the theory that the defense gets to pick the most advantageous out on appeal. The J/R play, though not an appeal, is <b>like</b> an appeal for the 4th out.

FED doesn't have that. The umpire makes the decision. He's the one who calls the out without any "help" from the defense.

Do you believe you can convince the members of the Ft. Worth chapter that the umpire should call that man out at first <b>after</b> the defense has made a third out during play?

If you try that in your chapter, you'll never rise about JV games, which I presume is one of your goals.

My "opinion," as I made clear, is that the people who make interpretations for FED will also not accept the PBUC ruling. Heck, I know plenty of OBR umpires who find it rather bizarre.

I trust you understand my judgment now.

Guilty Yer Honor, ....
 

...as I am unashamedly one of those "OBR umpires" Carl mentions! I honestly believe that J/R and the PBUC have distorted the intentions of the rule makers in permitting a non-appeal 4th out. Under the rules, a 4th out can only happen on an <i>appeal play</i>, and then only for one of the base running infractions found in OBR 7.10! However, the PBUC and J/R have made this a specifically non-appeal 4th out ruling <u>simply to prevent a run from legally scoring</u> as the direct result of a defensive <i>fielder's choice</i> in making a non-force 3rd out. <b>Phooey!!!</b> If the defense wanted to prevent that run scoring they should have played on the batter-runner instead! Their choice - their consequences, IMHO.

Now I honestly don't want to debate this issue all over again in this thread, but I felt I was entitled to offer the alternative view given Bfair's post and position in trying to extend this PBUC ruling to cover FED.

Cheers,

Actually, the point I was trying to make was as follows:

Fed rule:
---8-2-1 requires runner to advance to base
---8-2-1 penalty says umpire will call out if not done
---9-1-1a says no run if 3rd out by BR failing to reach 1st base
---9-1-1-e provides beneficial "last" out to defense
---all other Fed examples acknowledge that a missed 1st base when declared out negates run
---PBUC ruling says BR must advance to 1st even if 3rd out is made elsewhere on the play
---no contradictory ruling by Fed showing otherwise, therefore---------

Summation: BY RULE---call BR out and negate run. Look like a jerk on the field.
In reality, this is one not to call.

Now, Carl, I have seen you apply the fact that if a situation is addressed under one set of rules and a ruling is made, then that same ruling should apply to the other set of rules which has not yet ruled to address that specific situation. Is this not consistently applied logic? Is that not true? Would you not do it here? If not, is that only because you don't like the outcome of the ruling? Does your analogy logic apply only when YOU decide to use it? Will you use the logic consistently, or does the logic include YOUR GUESS as to what the Fed will or will not accept? Perhaps you just don't like admitting that sometimes rules are purposely overlooked and rightfully done so.

In closing , Carl, my earlier post complimented you in providing a real life, survivable answer to the initial question posed by JJ---rather than a black & white, live by the book answer. Sometimes our decisions on the field will not be according to the book but yet are in the best interest of the game. I thought that is what you had provided. Perhaps I am wrong.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 03:59 PM]

What is all the fuss about? There ain't no difference in Fed or OBR on JJ's play. Now I don' know about the play talked about on McGruff's but this one sure won't be worth calling PBUC for.

With R2 and R3 only, the runners aren't forced. So with two outs it's a timing play. If R3 made it across the plate before R2 was put out then the run would score. If the BR didn't make it to first before R2 was out such is life. As R2 was put out for the third out, the half inningis over the B/R don't got to go there.

As I said the half inning is over in Fed or OBR.

You put runners on first, second and third with all the same things happening ---THAT--- would be a horse of a different color.


rex

Lamente la difference!
 

Sorry, Rex, but there IS a difference between FED and OBR on this play. That difference comes courtesy of a recent PBUC ruling that would allow a 4th non-appeal out at 1st base on the BR in such circumstances, even though the 3rd out had already been made on a timing play, in order to cancel the run! I know, I know. You can't make plays after the 3rd out except for appeals, right? WRONG under OBR, now, thanks to that PBUC ruling and an earlier interpretation covered in J/R! Like I said, I don't want to debate that in this thread, which is supposed to be about the FED rules. Please email me if you want a more in-depth explanation of the latest bizarre rulings (plural) by PBUC.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 05:16 PM]

Enough is enough!
 

Steve, what you are missing here is that the 4th out allowed by PBUC is a <b><i>non-appeal</b></i> 4th out. The batter-runner is NOT out for "missing" 1st base. He is out instead under OBR 6.05(j) because the PBUC says the defense can correct their error in not playing on the BR for the 3rd out! FED doesn't allow appeals of "missed" bases that runners haven't yet reached, any more than does OBR.

If FED suddenly decides to allow 5 strikes and 7 balls, providing the batter is the first in the lineup on a Shrove Tuesday, does this mean we should also do so in OBR? You are once again poking a lance at Carl, this time about borrowing rulings from other codes. I wholeheartedly agree with Carl that "borrowing rulings" from other codes is a legitimate approach IF you are using those rulings in order to make an OBR 9.01(c) on-field determination that you fear might later be protested. Some authoritative support for your on-field decision is better than NONE at all, right? However, I'm sure even YOU would agree that you should also use your OWN common sense and NOT "borrow rulings" that neither you nor anyone else in their right mind, much less a protest committee, can easily follow! That's the case here, IMHO.

Now, please, stop jousting at Carl with off-topic issues every time he makes a post in this forum. It is already obvious to all and sundry that you disagree with most everything Carl says, and that you consider him to be a hypocrite who changes his position from post to post to suit his own ends. As <b>WRONG</b> as you most certainly are about that, Steve, you'll NEVER convince everyone else using this forum to go along with your faulty premise. Give it up, please!

Cheers,

Cobber,

That would be okey dokey with me, if you promise to keep it under 10,000 words.

But before I give a formal e-mail request. Sombody please tell me this. If PBUC up and changed there ruling on this. Why didn't they put it in the new manual? This isn't a play from Mars and the book is bran spanken new.


rex

Re: Enough is enough!
 

Warren, by reviewing the Fed rules provided you will find:
1) the runner is required to advance
2) if he doesn't, the umpire without defensive appeal will declare him out at the end of playing action
3) the defense can accept the most advantageous final out.

Warren, <u> PBUC is not saying the defense can correct their error</u> (as you may like to view it). The PBUC is standing by the tradition that no runs can score on a play where the final out is a force out or where BR fails to reach 1st base (6.05j). They are requiring the offense to advance at least to the next base if forced to do so. That has always been part of the game to the best of my knowledge.

I don't know where or when you became the Fed expert as I recall past posts where you excused yourself regarding Fed questions. It seemed no one in Oz played by Fed rules. Although not official, my discussions included a Fed interpreter who agreed rather than disagreed with my logic. I will take his opinion over yours.


Warren, you were the one who once pointed out the flaw in using ridiculous examples. The obvious flaw in your example is, in fact, that the Fed specifically states how many balls and strikes are required in their game. Again, as typical, you manage to muddy the page with your rhetorical nonesense.

Fact is, the Fed has not specifically ruled on this issue. Therefore, using logic previously explained by Carl, by analogy one should attempt to use the ruling from the other set of rules if, indeed, the other set of rules has specifically addressed the issue. That IS the case here. The logic should not be dismissed merely because you or someone else does not like the outcome of the decision. Perhaps we can use the logic only with your approval. Are you allowed to use it only when proving your point, and we are only allowed to accept it then?? I suspect the ruling of the PBUC is not popular amongst the majority of umpires. That may be where the problem originates.

Warren, I am not jousting with Carl. You will find many posts by both of us here and elsewhere that do not address each other. However, I for one will not accept all that is said as Gospel---even if it means just to question why. That is my choice. You and others may do as you desire. That is your choice.

As stated, if you even cared to read it, I felt Carl had made a highly practical post to the initial question posed to start the thread. IMO, it is WW who typically manages to write 1000 words with 10 worth reading---with the most appreciated among the group of 10 being "Cheers".

Just my opinion (and that of others),

Steve

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 06:47 PM]

Re: Re: Enough is enough!
 

I think everyone would be very happy if you really knew as much baseball as you pretend. Picking on Warren, huh?

Amazing!

It's like one the high school JV teams you umpire challenging the New York Yankess to a three-game series.

You are great at quoting rules, but you just don't understand what you quote, Steve.

FED 8-2-1 (you say) "requires runner to advance to base."

That's just another in a horrendously long line of your flat out wrong statements. All 8-2-1 says is that runners shall advance around the bases in order.

I've long since discovered you need to be taught like my 16-year-old Bronco umpires. That's OK; I've become a patient man since I started reading your uh, well, whatever they are.

Follow along now: one-word answers only.

1. R2, B1 singles. R2 must vacate second. Yes/No
2. R1, B1 singles. R1 must vacate first. Yes/No
3. If a runner is forced, he must advance. Yes/No
4. Sequential runners (look it up in the J/R) must advance when the batter becomes a batter-runner. Yes/No
5. A batter-runner is never forced. Yes/No

Hey, did you go 5 for 5?

If so, stop trying to prove that a FED umpire <b>must</b> call out a batter-runner for a fouth out at first when the batter did not <b>miss</b> the base.

BTW: I note you didn't comment on whether you were going to teach this "maneuver" to the Ft. Worth chapter.




[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 08:04 PM]

Another waste of bandwidth on such a stupid professional minor league interpretation. Let them have it!!!

If the batter hits the ball and then dies in the running lane before reaching first base does the defense tag his body or can his spirit still advance? :eek:

I'd like to thank everybody for picking up this ball and running with it - I was a bit disappointed at the initial response.
FYI, since I haven't been convinced by anyone's response (there are great arguments on both sides), I emailed the FED Baseball guru, Elliot Hopkins, at the NFHS offices in Indy. When I get his reply I will post it for all - hopefully before Christmas! :)

Look at 9.1.1.E for your answer
 

According to 9.1-1-E page 54 the defense can choose the out that is to it's advantage. Count the batter-runner out, nullify and don't count the score. My opinion only.

Greg

Fed rule:
---9-1-1-e provides beneficial "last" out to defense
I agree that the run should be negated because of the above rule.

John:

You're obviously new to the world of the NFHS, and you clearly need a FED rulebook. From page 2:<ul>Requests for baseball rule interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school baseball program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from <b>state associations</b> [my emphasis] whenever called upon.</ul>That statement has appeared in every FED rulebook since 1983.

I don't mean to throw cold water on your parade; I <b>hope</b> Elliot answers, but I'll bet a dollar to a penny he doesn't.

Your best bet is to email the director of high school athletics in your state. That may <b>not</b> be the head of the umpires' association, BTW.

BTW2: Someone wrote privately that you used your name in earlier posts. I'm sorry I missed that, but it's nice to have a real name to go with the keyboard. If you find that difficult to believe, spend 12 hours at McGriff's board.

BTW3: I just noticed, however, you don't have an email address.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 11:32 PM]

I think in this situation, the runner scoring from home could legally carry the dead person to first base.

Greg

Re: Look at 9.1.1.E for your answer
 

Members of the Board:

I received a similar comment from Greg in a private email. Here's a part of my response:<ul>The FED rule you talk about has to do with a 4th out where a runner has committed a baserunning error. There are but two: missing a base or leaving a base too soon.

A batter-runner who does not proceed to first has committed neither.

Therefore, read FED 9-1-1 Exception a: "A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which THE THIRD OUT is made as follows: a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

In a play where another runner makes the third out and the batter-runner does not miss first base, how can there be an advantageous out?

The key to the FED ruling is exactly in the text quoted by BFair early in this thread. In OBR a fourth out by non-appeal is implied by the rules and made clear by the J/R and PBUC rulings. "Fourth" outs can be attained on both the BR at first or by a force out.

But lets look at the FED rule 9-1-1:

EXCEPTIONS: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is
made as follows:
a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base; or
d. when a third out is declared during a play in which an umpire observed a base-running infraction resulting in
a force-out (this out takes precedence if enforcement of it would negate a score); or

The FED rules allow for a "fourth" out in (d) but not (a). The batter runner can <b>never</b> be forced out, thus he can never be called for a fourth out.

Unless there is a separate, different rule considering "fourth" outs (or the rule above is just plain wrong), QED.

P-Sz

Enough is enough is enough already!
 

Even though I am unashamedly NOT a FED rules "expert", I think you'll find that the requirement to advance only applies when forced. It is a FALLACY (look that up if you have to) to suggest that the batter-runner is "forced" to advance to 1st base. The BR is NOT required to vacate a base that he has never held, and so can NEVER be "forced" in that sense. Furthermore, NO runner is required to advance AFTER the 3rd out has finally been made in the half inning either! That's just baseball basics. Don't take my word for it (of course I know you won't), look it up! Once the 3rd out has been finally made no bases may be acquired and no runs scored.

So now YOU are in sync with the thought processes of the PBUC, in this case the entire Minor League staff in conference in Texas? Horse feathers! Under the rules there are ONLY 3 outs in any half inning. OBR 4.09 only applied to those 3 outs, UNTIL the recent PBUC decision which now allows an unprecedented <b>4</b> outs! And don't feed me any of your drivel about OBR 7.10 and the "apparent" 4th out. That is only an "<u>apparent</u>" 4th, but is actually a chronological <b>3rd</b>, out. I know that concept will be beyond you, too!

NO RUNNER HAS <i>EVER</i> BEEN REQUIRED TO RUN BASES ONCE THE 3RD OUT OF THE HALF INNING HAS FINALLY BEEN MADE - UNTIL NOW!

I have NEVER claimed expert status in FED rules. To suggest otherwise, as you have here, is pure prevarication. The only statements I have made concerning FED rules have simply reiterated statements by others who truly ARE FED experts. I'll match your FED interpreter with MY FED interpreter and raise you a FED casebook and a BRD author!

Absolute drivel and nonsense that has totally missed the point being made, and so is not worth commenting upon. I won't waste my time on it, beyond that brief observation.

Outright LIE, Steve. You devoted an entire paragraph of your last post to the suggestion that Carl is duplicitious in his use of the very principle under discussion. Personally, neither of us cares WHAT you "accept .. as Gospel" or otherwise. My desire is to go back to ignoring your outright stupidity with its pretentions to "logic".

Here is the 1 word in 1000 I know you will appreciate from me..

Cheers,

Get a grip, HT...
 

1. Until you mentioned it in this post, I'm sure neither Carl nor I was aware of JJ's status as a "state rules clinician". It certainly doesn't appear in his on-line biography, which simply states he is from Illinois. I have only just learned that his real name is John Johnston. Maybe Carl has too.

2. Absent that knowledge, Carl's advice to write to the state director for his interpretation was logical, sound and helpful - unlike your negative post.

3. No apology, whether public or private, should EVER be due for a legitimate attempt to assist a poster, unless of course that poster is a negative influence such as yourself.

Get a grip, HT.

Cheers,

Re: Oh Carl.....
 

Mr. Mayo:

JJ must be <b>THE</b> Illinois clinician, as Tim Stevens is for Washington, before he can be answered, according to the policy as it has been explained to me, both by Rumble and the former Texas "clinician," Dotson Lewis.

I stand by what I said. How could I have known that he was a FED umpire, let along a rules interpreter? His on-screen persona began as a PRO grad, spent time on OBR issues, and finally began asking FED questions, some of which might be called "routine."

There was no intent to embarrass him (how could I? He IS who he is), only to assuage his disappointment when the FED did not reply "by Christmas" -- or any other holiday.

If Hopkins replies, I'll push the bet that I'm right: I wager two dollars to a penny there is no 4th out, "non-appeal" (umpire declares an out) in FED play.

In JJ's original scenario, score the run.

I predict 100 out of 100 non-Internet umpirs would do the same everywhere in the world, regardless of the rulebook being used.

What's your take on that? Freix won't answer about any attempts he's made to convince the Ft. Worth chapter. How about your neck of the woods?

OK everyone, this discussion is deteriorating badly. All I wanted was an answer to a question so I could be enlightened and be able to enlighten. My life motto is "Consider the source", so I just take in all the answers and try to weed out the personal attacks. I'm closing this thread, and want to thank you all for your time and answers and references.