I ain't letting it go

[Warren Willson]

... and taking a more simplistic view of this whole question I would like all the curious here to return to basics for their answers on this issue. Until now, the basics on this question have been:-

1. In all codes a half-inning, and so any team's turn at bat, is supposed to consist ONLY of 3 outs.

2. If the 3rd of those outs is made on a "forced" runner, OR on the batter-runner before he reaches 1st base, no runs may score on the half-inning ending play.

3. If the 3rd out is made on a runner other than the batter-runner at 1st, and that runner was NOT forced to advance, the runs scored before that 3rd out will count.

4. In all codes, no bases may be run and no players put out AFTER the 3rd out has been made in any half-inning.

If you accept basics 1-4 above, irrespective of the code, then it becomes a very simple issue to deal with this 4th out situation.

Under all codes, if there is a base running error such as leaving early or a missed base that occurs during the half-inning ending play, then an "apparent" 4th out may be possible ON APPEAL! In FED, that can apparently also result in the umpire unilaterally calling an advantageous 4th out for such a base running infraction, or so I'm told. In OBR, however, that requires an obvious appeal for a base running error by the defense.

The batter-runner failing to acquire 1st base AFTER the 3rd out of a half-inning is NOT a base running error, nor can it result in an out on appeal. It is not even an out under OBR 6.05(j), because it occurs AFTER the 3rd out that ended the half-inning. The half-inning is OVER after the 3rd out, and there can be no more non-appeal outs, absent this ruling. There are only 6 appeal plays in OBR; 4 are in OBR 7.10, plus 1 in OBR 6.07 and 1 in OBR 9.02(c)Note. None of those appeals is for the batter-runner failing to reach 1st base, whether BEFORE or AFTER the 3rd out of a half-inning has been legitimately made elsewhere.

Until now, the ONLY reason the umpire might be required to recognise an "apparent" 4th out ON APPEAL is that outs ON APPEAL are deemed to have occurred at the time of the infraction. That means that, chronologically speaking, the "apparent" 4th out was in fact the ACTUAL 3rd out! Therefore, allowing this "apparent" 4th out ON APPEAL makes good common sense and is consistent with the rest of the rules!

That is definitely NOT the case with this non-appeal 4th out, as reported in J/R and reinforced by the recent PBUC ruling. If the defense is allowed to play on the batter-runner at 1st, AFTER it has secured a 3rd non-force out elsewhere on the diamond, it will be an ACTUAL 4th out and NOT an "apparent" 4th out. It will also come, chronologically speaking, AFTER the real 3rd out! What's more, it will occur in circumstances where the batter-runner can no longer prevent being called out, since he can't legally acquire a base AFTER the 3rd out of a half-inning. That's a HUGE defensive advantage which I believe was not intended by the rules. The only reason to allow such an out is to allow the defense to correct its defensive error of choice, when they made the non-force out in preference to the equally available out on the batter-runner, and so prevent an otherwise legal run from scoring. That's JUST NOT BASEBALL, and never has been, IMHO!!!

BTW, for those among you who think the batter-runner is "forced" to advance to 1st base, ask yourselves why it is necessary in those circumstances to have OBR 4.09(a) Exception (1) in the rules at all? It would be totally superflous! I don't KNOW for a fact, but I suspect that the FED equivalent would read the same.

Cheers,