I ain't letting it go

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
.
What (or who) FORCES the batter-runner to run? What action in baseball OBLIGATES him to run?

[/B]

And the answer for Fed is---the rulebook and the casebook !!!
For Fed, I offer the following:
(hint to Carl: Read the bold print only)

Chapter 8. Baserunning
SECTION 1 WHEN BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER
ARTICLE 1. A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home base in the listed order when:
a. he hits a fair ball

SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE
ARTICLE 1. An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order, including awarded bases.

[snip]

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.

Rule 9
Scoring - Record Keeping
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;
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.

NOTE: Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first. Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l).

* * * Please Note: They could have said "out for abandoning the basepath" had they wished to and as they did in Casebook play 8.4.2b where they said "Upon reaching base a runner abandons his effort when he leaves the baseline or his position believing there is no further play. (8-4-2p)." They chose not to here because the runner had not reached the base (as shown) but is required to. That is what Casebook 8.1.1b shows.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the play, the BR became an advancing runner by rule 8-1-1. He did not advance and touch first base. He is required to touch bases in order per rule 8-2-1 (and remember, no run can score when the 3rd out is made by BR before he reaches 1st base). By penalty of rule 8-2-1 umpire will declare him out after play has ended for not touching 1st base. (Fed no appeal rule) By rule 9-1-1e (and the recent PBUC ruling) the defense can take the most advantageous out. By rule 9-1-1a no run can score where BR does not reach 1st base.

THEREFORE, by rule, any scored run is negated.

Now, I don't think it is enforced this way and nor should it be. That is my opinion. I do believe, however, if I do not call the runner out, I am knowingly circumventing the rule.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, some may not like the wording. They may even call it poor wording as was done elsewhere in this thread when the wording showed something the writer didn't agree with. Perhaps that is the problem again here. Perhaps the Fed rulebook and the Fed casebook are not considered authorititative sources any longer??? Perhaps the rulebook and the casebook need rewording in the next reprint to agree with a different opinion??

Interesting enough, Carl Childress believes the batter runner is not required to touch first base. However, if we make the assumption that Carl is wrong, and indeed, the runner is required to touch first base, then the PBUC ruling makes sense, the wording of Fed rules chapter 8 makes sense, the Fed Casebook makes sense, and the previously mentioned "poor" wording within Rule 8 brought forth by JJ makes sense, and even the "concept" (and practical application) that a batter is forced to first base makes sense. Agreeing with Carl, none of these make sense. I wonder if it makes sense that Carl is right, and the others are wrong?

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 27th, 2001 at 11:31 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
Thank you Warren!

Ya done brought it all together for me and ya don’t know what ya did.

It’s not 7.10. You said “ending play”. It’s rule 4.09(b).

Sorry, Rex, but this one doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. There are lots of good reasons in Carl's post, but I've got another one for you.

OBR 4.09 Penalty strictly mentions "...with 2 outs..." when talking about requiring the batter-runner to advance or be called out. Problem here is we already have 3 outs, so the passage is not applicable, even if it weren't strictly dealing ONLY with an awarded 1st base.

What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be 4 outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "substitute" 3rd out if it is advantageous to the defense. While I can accept that for "apparent" 4th outs on appeal, where the offense has committed a base running infraction that SHOULD taint their run, I find it very hard to swallow on ACTUAL 4th outs without appeal where the offense has done everything required by the rules. There has NEVER been a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for bases to be run AFTER a legitimate 3rd out had been made, EXCEPT as the result of actions that occurred BEFORE the 3rd out such as an awarded base - at least not until now!

For me, there is just no way around OBR 5.07 without forever changing the way the game has always been played. The arrangement to have only THREE outs in a half inning dates back to the 15th rule of the original 1845 Knickerbocker rules, "15TH. Three hands out, all out." (my emphasis) Allowing any defensive team an extra (4th) out for the sole purpose of cancelling an otherwise legitimately scored run, made on a simple fielder's choice time play, is tipping the balance way too far for mine and changing a fundamental part of the game!

Bad J/R. Bad PBUC. Bad, BAD PBUC.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 28th, 2001 at 12:55 AM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

OBR 4.09 Penalty strictly mentions "...with 2 outs..." when talking about requiring the batter-runner to advance or be called out. Problem here is we already have 3 outs, so the passage is not applicable, even if it weren't strictly dealing ONLY with an awarded 1st base......

What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be 4 outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "substitute" 3rd out if it is advantageous to the defense. While I can accept that for "apparent" 4th outs on appeal, where the offense has committed a base running infraction that SHOULD taint their run, I find it very hard to swallow on ACTUAL 4th outs without appeal where the offense has done everything required by the rules. There has NEVER been a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for bases to be run AFTER a legitimate 3rd out had been made, EXCEPT as the result of actions that occurred BEFORE the 3rd out such as an awarded base - at least not until now!

[/B]

I think if you look at the interpretations, the fact the the BR or forced runners must advance is, indeed, the result of an act that occurred before 3 outs were made. Either the batter accepted or swung at strike 3 which is then dropped (not yet 3 outs) or he hit a fair ball (not yet 3 outs). The ruling merely allows any advantageous out on the play to be accepted by the defense.

Now that you can see it ONLY comes into consideration when the play is started with less than 3 outs it should be much easier for you to understand and accept. You seemed to indicate that in your last post. The answer is here if you care to accept it.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Bad J/R. Bad PBUC. Bad, BAD PBUC.

I see that Willson is STILL choosing to ignore Authoritative Opinion and Official Interpretations and is involved in counter-productive banter. Perhaps someone should alert the other guy that this is one of the factors determining that an umpire is a neo-romanticist. HIS rath should be visited upon Willson as it is to others that take this same position. A house divided...

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be 4 outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "substitute" 3rd out if it is advantageous to the defense. While I can accept that for "apparent" 4th outs on appeal, where the offense has committed a base running infraction that SHOULD taint their run, I find it very hard to swallow on ACTUAL 4th outs without appeal where the offense has done everything required by the rules. There has NEVER been a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for bases to be run AFTER a legitimate 3rd out had been made, EXCEPT as the result of actions that occurred BEFORE the 3rd out such as an awarded base - at least not until now!

For me, there is just no way around OBR 5.07 without forever changing the way the game has always been played. The arrangement to have only THREE outs in a half inning dates back to the 15th rule of the original 1845 Knickerbocker rules, "15TH. Three hands out, all out." (my emphasis) Allowing any defensive team an extra (4th) out for the sole purpose of cancelling an otherwise legitimately scored run, made on a simple fielder's choice time play, is tipping the balance way too far for mine and changing a fundamental part of the game!

OK...let me get this straight:

1. Knickerbocker Rules: ancient AMERICAN original rules of the beloved game.

2. Jaksa/Roder: AMERICAN authors generally recognized as Authoritative Opinion.

3. PBUC: AMERICAN Minor Leagues Official Interpretations.

4. Warren Willson: Assie Internet personna who thumbs his nose at the above as often as not.

Conclusion: There IS Australian Rules Football so why don't they invent Australian Rules Baseball and all this nonsense will be a moot point down under? WW could then become the official interpreter down there.

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by umpyre007

I see that Willson is STILL choosing to ignore Authoritative Opinion and Official Interpretations and is involved in counter-productive banter. Perhaps someone should alert the other guy that this is one of the factors determining that an umpire is a neo-romanticist. HIS rath should be visited upon Willson as it is to others that take this same position. A house divided...

You apparently neglected to read one of Warren's previous posts; when I asked him whether his personal opinions on the issue would affect the way he calls it on the field, this is how he responded:

Absent a direction from my Assignor or my league to the contrary, I would feel obliged to call the play the way the PBUC ruling demands and so allow the 4th out. My job as an official doesn't require me to "like" the rules I'm expected to enforce. PBUC Official Interpretations ARE the rules, at least in my league.

Again, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on how the game should be played -- 15" or 10" mounds, advantageous 4th outs, designated hitters, etc. The men choose to leave their personal opinions at the gate and call the game the way we're paid to call; the boys carry their opinions on the field and continue ignore official interpretations and authoritative opinion and try to force their values and opinions on someone else's time.

Just doing my job,
Dennis

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Originally posted by Warren Willson

HIS rath should be visited upon Willson as it is to others that take this same position.

Say, isn't "rath" a brand of processed meat or something? I know "rathe" describes a "fruit" that ripens early. I hope you aren't making comments about my masculinity.

You know, I thought you were just being cute with "umpyre" when in fact you just can't spell.

LOL.

[PaulWhitworth]

quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
.
What (or who) FORCES the batter-runner to run? What action in baseball OBLIGATES him to run?



And BFair replied:

And the answer for Fed is---the rulebook and the casebook !!!
For Fed, I offer the following: (hint to Carl: Read the bold print only)

(Note by Paul: Why is that? Because a thorough reading fails to prove Bfair's pint.)


Back to BFair:
Chapter 8. Baserunning
SECTION 1 WHEN BATTER BECOMES A RUNNER
ARTICLE 1. A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home base in the listed order when:
a. he hits a fair ball

NOTE BY PAUL: A thorough reading by BFair would have revealed that the runner "has the right" tp attempt to etc. Carl's question "what obligates" remains unanswered.



Back tp BFAIR:

SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE
ARTICLE 1. An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order, including awarded
bases.

NOTE BY PAUL:

Again if BFair read all that he typed instead of the bold print, he would see that that this rule instructs the advancing runner to touch etc. IN ORDER.

Again, Carl's question goes unaswered.

In the interest of time and space, I won't repeat all of BFAIR's post here. But you get the idea, If you really read the passages he quotes he you will see that Carl's quesion remains unanswered. Nothing that BFAIR quotes OBLIGATES the runner to run.


Paul Whitworth
EWSMCKMBA

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by umpyre007
OK...let me get this straight:

1. Knickerbocker Rules: ancient AMERICAN original rules of the beloved game.

2. Jaksa/Roder: AMERICAN authors generally recognized as Authoritative Opinion.

3. PBUC: AMERICAN Minor Leagues Official Interpretations.

4. Warren Willson: Assie Internet personna who thumbs his nose at the above as often as not.

Conclusion: There IS Australian Rules Football so why don't they invent Australian Rules Baseball and all this nonsense will be a moot point down under? WW could then become the official interpreter down there.

... this ISN'T about what I have to say, but rather my RIGHT to say it based only upon my nationality!

Any reader of this venomous bile should ask themselves WHY it was necessary to put the word AMERICAN in all capital letters. The fact is that the subsequent paragraphs make it perfectly clear why; the writer questions my right to make any comments about the AMERICAN pastime of baseball because I am only an "Assie (crude but clever 'typo' for Aussie) Internet persona". It enjoins the reader to unite in the writer's hatred of my ideas by suggesting I am "thumbing my nose"(sic) at AMERICANS, their game, their authorities and their traditions. That is called an ad populum argument and it is clearly and evidently a false argument based on nothing more than personal prejudice.

U7, coming out of the closet on your antipathies must have been a painful experience for you to harbor so much anger and resentment. What have I EVER done to deserve this from you, hmmmm?

As the reigning Intercontinental Cup World Champions in the sport of baseball, I believe that Australians have earned the right by their success to comment on this great game, its rules and its traditions. As the World Record holders for the largest crowd EVER to attend a baseball game (110,000 - MCG, 1956) we have proven our ardour. Having played the game continuously since 1856, the year the first professional rules were codified in America, we have also proven our fidelity. What more could anyone ask of a nation of only 18.9 million people? Baseball may not be our national pastime, but I say we have proven our commitment to your game beyond any such bitter resentment.

BTW, in case you missed the point of my argument about which you apparently feel so aggrieved, a dispassionate reading will show you that my approach was in fact in DEFENSE of the origins, history and traditions of the game dating back to the original 1845 rules. But don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good Aussie bashing, eh U7?

My how a hatred does tend to blind its owner....

Have a nice day.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 28th, 2001 at 06:15 PM]

[rex]

Folks,

I'm talken basball here. take the other stuff to a different place.


rex

[Bfair]

Originally posted by PaulWhitworth
quote:
In the interest of time and space, I won't repeat all of BFAIR's post here. But you get the idea, If you really read the passages he quotes he you will see that Carl's quesion remains unanswered. Nothing that BFAIR quotes OBLIGATES the runner to run.

A valiant effort, Paul, but most will see that your efforts at your previous post were far more meaningful.

You see the transparent clothing, you mimic like a parrot, and you need to understand a single passage can require both "touching" and "in order". I hope the complexity of two (2) meanings within the same passage has not confused you.

Furthermore, you fail to address the other issues including the PBUC ruling, the J/R ruling, and most importantly the Fed Casebook. These are all difficult to refute, so I can understand why you have not addressed them no differently that Childress has failed to do. We can also mention the passage noted by JJ referencing the BR being "forced" and the weak argument of refute by Childress regarding "poor wording". It seems only natural the wording is poor when it does not support his position.

No, Paul, for your first attempt I must admit your previous attempt was far more meaningful. To those able to grasp more than one concept at a time, they realize that, indeed, Childress' question was answered leaving him very little to say. I realize you still consider it unanswered. The reason is obvious.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Originally posted by Warren Willson

OK...let me get this straight:

1. Knickerbocker Rules: ancient AMERICAN original rules of the beloved game.

2. Jaksa/Roder: AMERICAN authors generally recognized as Authoritative Opinion.

3. PBUC: AMERICAN Minor Leagues Official Interpretations.

4. Warren Willson: Assie Internet personna who thumbs his nose at the above as often as not.

Conclusion: There IS Australian Rules Football so why don't they invent Australian Rules Baseball and all this nonsense will be a moot point down under? WW could then become the official interpreter down there.

One of the downsides of the Internet is that you can say almost anything you want, current threats to do bodily harm to American high school students excepted. This means calling someone any name you want. However, to disagree with someone based in large part due to his nationality certainly does not reflect the good common sense and fair balance that makes for a good umpire. I think that if you re-read your post you will agree. It might have been that you intended your words to be humorous. If so, they did not come across as such.

[Buster]

Bfair's post of 3/27/01 @ 11:17 PM makes a pretty strong case and has official interpretation to back it up.
Carl, I understand that it is in direct opposition to what you believe to be correct, but it indeed merits a response. Inquiring minds want to know what you have to say in rebuttal.

Buster

[PaulWhitworth]

BFAir, here's what we'll do. We'll take it slow and by the numbers and to make it fair, we'll use the points you brought up and make no reference to anyone else.

First, BFair, you cited:
Chapter 8. Baserunning
SECTION 1 When a batter becomes a runner

ARTICLE 1. A batter becomes a runner with the right to attempt to score by advancing to first, second, third and home base in the listed order when:
a, when he hits a fair ball.


Okay now, BFAIR, do you see anywhere in that citations any wording that forces or obligates a runner to run?

Yes or no only, please.

The correct answer is No. He has the RIGHT to attempt to score by advancing, he does not HAVE to do so, at least not by this citation.



Nect, you cite:

SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE
ARTICLE 1. An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third and then home plate in order, including awarded bases.


Again, BFAIr, is there any language in this citation that states that a runner MUST run? YES or NO only please.

Again the correct answer is NO. This citation describes the order in which bases must be run when they are run or awarded.

Now, when we can agree on the Enlish language and the exact wording of these citations, we can move on to the next two.

We will cover them all. Nothing will be left out. I just want to make sure we stay together and don't get overwhelmed by a lot verbage. When I see you have read the two citations you provided and can understand what they say, we'll go to the next.

Paul

[rex]

I find this to be a unique situation. As I see it we have here Carl and Warren who both disagree with this PBUC interpretation. Both can’t figure out from what direction this call comes. Warren says If the league is playing by OBR then by dern I’m acallin it (even if I disagree and can’t find any thing in any book(s) about it). Carl on the other hand who doesn’t agree with the interpretation defends PBUC’s right to make the call but assures us all he’d never make the call nor would he recommend we do. Yet Carl with his vast rules knowledge doesn’t know where the rule comes from.

Now that I’ve p!ssed you gentlemen off completely please continue with me, then you may loose your Wrath upon me.

When this play was first brought to my attention, by JJ I was with you. I mean to say “ You gotta be kidding me they can’t call that.” Then the more you explained why this play was so bogus, the more
I wanted to know from what direction it came.

The difference in our approaches is that rather than trying to prove that no rule matched and PBUC is wrong. I chose look for the positive and try to find PBUC to be right.

I’m sure that no amount of typing can ever convince either of you that this is a good ruling. I’m sure not the one to even try. So I’ll just put it this way.

When Carl recently brought the ruling forth I said to myself I’d never make that call. I’m always in enough trouble as it is why bring on a firestorm on purpose. If I can’t explain my support for a call I sure as hell better not make it. And “because PBUC said so” just ain’t cutting it.

Rule 4.09(b) is enough. It tells me the B/R has got to run it out. It tells me the penalty if he doesn’t. Now then the odds of this situation ever coming to pass is not something I’d care to bet on. But should it ever happen on a field I’m working I know how to handle it. IF I WOULD CHOSE TO UNLEASE THIS FIRESTORM because you can sure a hell bet no coach knows of this interpretation, if Carl didn’t know about it.

BTW—As the FED bases their rules on the OBR I’m thinken what been posted by the opposition just might be correct. The think the Fed is saying the B/R has got to run it out.


rex