FED Interp, please?

[JJ]

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?

[Gre144]

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]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
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?

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.

[Bfair]

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

PENALTY (ARTICLE 1-5): For failure to touch base (advancing or returning), 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). After all playing action has ended, the umpire will indicate time-out to call runners out. 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.

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

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.

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 by the rules the official should declare the 4th out and negate the run.

We can also look at JJ's initial post and his final question:
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?

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]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
EXCEPTIONS: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out [my emphasis] is made as follows:
a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base; or

Do I need to say anything else?

[PAblue87]

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.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.
[/B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Do I need to say anything else?

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

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 [/B]

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 like 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 after 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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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.

...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 appeal play, 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 simply to prevent a run from legally scoring as the direct result of a defensive fielder's choice in making a non-force 3rd out. Phooey!!! 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,

[Bfair]

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]

[rex]

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

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
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.

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]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

Steve, what you are missing here is that the 4th out allowed by PBUC is a non-appeal 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 WRONG 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,

[rex]

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

[Bfair]

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.

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Steve, what you are missing here is that the 4th out allowed by PBUC is a non-appeal 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.[/B]

Warren, PBUC is not saying the defense can correct their error (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.

Originally posted by Warren Willson
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. [/B]

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.

Originally posted by Warren Willson
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 WRONG 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! [/B]

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]