|
Fri Mar 23, 2001, 09:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay Carl Thanks for the heads-up.
__________________
Ty |
|
Fri Mar 23, 2001, 11:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm afraid it's the latter. Contrary to what you think, the number of outs is not the main point. That matters only because we need the fourth out at first else there's no issue in dispute. My central point is that a runner cannot be indicted for missing a base until he rounds it without touching it. Or, to put it another way, a runner who is not forced to advance cannot be indicted for missing a base until he reaches it. Those principles are fundamental to the Theory of Appealed, Sequential Runners, one of the most awesome creations in all of sports. Consider: A sequential, offensive player may have undisputed, legal title to any base (except home!); but if the batter becomes a viable batter-runner, the sequential player must give up his haven, regardless of the jeopardy that may attach to him because of it. One moment, he is secure, as in his mother's womb; the next, through no fault of his own, he may find himself in a fourth-class berth on the Titantic an hour after it struck the berg. First question: What is the compeling FORCE that requires the batter-runner to advance ANYWHERE? To put it a final way: Find any statement by a recognized authority or rules committee that says: "The batter-runner must advance to first." What the rules say are:
The PBUC, speaking for the professional minor league staff umpires (OBR), says yes. Carl Childress, speaking for himself (FED), says no. Is there anyone reading this post who has ever:
JJ: Are you really going to call out Monty and cancel Appling's run? If you are, brace yourself because Jimmy Dykes will have his face glued to yours. BTW: I was one year old when they (could have) played that game. Yet, I remember it as if it were this very afternoon. |
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 12:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought I DID find a quote in the FED book about a batter being forced to advance, and I thought I quoted it. Page 46 Rule8-2-5 says, "With two outs, if the base missed was the first one to which a BATTER OR RUNNER was forced to advance, no runs would score."
I realize that, semantically, a batter does not have to go to first. Neither does a runner on first have to go to second. Etc. They can choose to just stay put, or take a couple of steps and stop. Of course, they put themselves in jeopardy...but if a batter is never "forced to advance", why is worded so on page 46? I also realize this is one of those plays that will probably never happen, but that's not the point. The point is, it's a situation that, if it DID occur, would have to be ruled on. That's why the question was asked in the first place. If we only asked questions on obvious plays, we'd get lots of "DUH" answers. It's the hard ones that don't occur very often that enlighten us (as opposed to "burden" us, which some people lean toward). Carl got his great reputation for rules knowledge by fielding a zillion of these. We should all field as many questions as he has had thrown at him over the years. That's why people go to him for answers - if he doesn't know it directly, he knows where to get it. BUT - my philosophy with rules questions has always been "Don't stop looking for answers just because you find one". Pardon me while I keep looking. 
|
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 12:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Neither the NCAA nor the OBR has any such erroneous language. BTW: I appreciate the kind words, but you didn't answer my main question: What is the compeling FORCE that requires the batter-runner to advance ANYWHERE? You argue that R1 really doesn't have to run when B1 becomes a viable BR. That begs the question: By the rules of baseball he MUST run or be put out. If first is open, R2 is NOT forced to run if B1 becomes a viable BR. That not only a difference; that's an important distinction your previous message glossed over. I'm not talking about a player's "right" or his "duty" to leave his base after a batted ball. I'm talking only about instances where he is OBLIGATED to move. In other words: The batter who becomes a viable batter-runner FORCES sequential runners to vacate their bases. What (or who) FORCES the batter-runner to run? What action in baseball OBLIGATES him to run? |
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 01:21am
|
|||
|
|||
Forgetting FED or OBR, just for the moment,....
... 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, |
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 04:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think most of us feel the same way you do, Warren, but apparently the PBUC has other thoughts about the issue.
Here's the main question that seems to be the dividing line on this forum: If you were paid to call a game that was played using PBUC interpretations and guidelines, would you call this play to what the PBUC ruling is or to what you feel the ruling should be? Dennis |
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 04:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
Oz is the Lucky Country yet again!
Quote:
Fortunately for me, I have had a specific direction to the contrary from my UDP. The word Down Under is that we will only enforce this interpretation when it finds its way into the printed PBUC Umpire Manual. We're all betting that it won't, and that calmer heads will quietly prevail in the interim. Even the professional leagues are currently split on this issue, with the ruling not being applicable to the Majors. Imagine the furore during the next World Series decider at Safeco Field, if this ruling was used to give the visitors a chance to wipe out a series-winning run! (HUGE grin) Cheers, |
|
Sat Mar 24, 2001, 07:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl, I don't know what forces a batter to run - that's why I brought up the quote from the FED book about the "batter or runner is forced to advance...", because it implies there must be something that does force him to advance. Your explanation of "muddy language" is fine. I've had the chance this weekend to discuss this more with very experienced officials, and without exception they agreed that the third out at 3rd base would end the inning in FED, and the run would score. The also agreed without exception that either the wording has to be cleaned up or a casebook play has to be posted to clarify things.
|
|
Mon Mar 26, 2001, 02:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the big difference between FED and OBR is how the appeal is made. In OBR the defense has to be aware of the possibility of a fourth out and then make the request. In FED the defense doesn't have to have any knowledge and gets a big boon. Maybe that's why the FED doesn't reconize the possibility. I wouldn't call it in a FED game. It's what my assignnor calls letting yourself into jail. Right or wrong that's what I'd do.
|
|
Mon Mar 26, 2001, 10:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A couple of new questions concerning the ruling from PBUC if you would please.
Carl, Your post answering my questions as to the location of the J/R play. BTW the play is in the same place in the 2000 book. You stated that Mike Fitxpatrick answered you question “1/27/00” Was that a typo? I understood this was a new ruling. I was under the impression the ruling came down this year. Now for the really big question from me. What was the play you asked on? The J/R play with bases loaded? JJ’s play with runners on second and third? Or was there a different scenario? We have an answer to a play I’m just wondering what was the question? rex
__________________
When you're green you'll grow When you're ripe you'll rot |
|
Mon Mar 26, 2001, 11:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Play: 2 outs, R3, R2: B1 singles and falls down, unable to run to first. R3 scores. R2 attempts to score but is thrown out: 3 outs. Now F2 throws to first. Ruling: The umpire will acknowledge it as an advantagous out. (J/R says it's not an appeal but still labels it "advantageous.") Fitzpatrick agreed with J/R: "We'd cancel the run, too," he told me on the phone. |
|
Tue Mar 27, 2001, 03:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl,
What can I say. BUT I need additional clarification. The J/R play calls for runners @ R3-R2 and R1. The play you just posted has R3 and R2 only. I'm thinking there is a difference in the plays. So which play did you ask? rex
__________________
When you're green you'll grow When you're ripe you'll rot |
|
Tue Mar 27, 2001, 07:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The concept being tested was that there could be a NON-APPEAL 4th out following the legitimate 3rd out of the inning. Until the Fitzpatrick ruling, for PBUC, the ONLY place this appeared was in J/R Chapter 9. Every other rule book or authority talks only of "apparent" 4th outs ON APPEAL for a base running infraction that occurred during the final play. The latter is consistent with OBR 7.10 Casebook Comment. The J/R play is NOT consistent with that rule, but rather represents a NEW rule allowing 4 live action outs in a half-inning. Try that (How many non-appeal outs can there be in any half inning? Answer: 4) as a trivia question at your next association fund raiser, and see how many correct answers you get. (grin) Cheers, |
|
Tue Mar 27, 2001, 11:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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). I know this may be putting it to simply, but a game ending play also ends the inning. Therefore it would stand to reason that on a hit that ends xxxxx. The runner has got to touch first or you disallow the run but ya don’t have to have an appeal. A friend of mine read me the JEA (over the phone) and it jives. Those of you that have the JEA check it out. It’s all there but you just have to think of ending the inning not the game. The OBR (as I ounce heard) is a finite set of rules for a game with infinite possibilities. They can’t write a rule for each situation. rex
__________________
When you're green you'll grow When you're ripe you'll rot |
|
Tue Mar 27, 2001, 11:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's a good try, but you don't get the cigarette. 4.09(b) deals only with an awarded base that may end the game. The whole purpose of 4.09 and PENALTY was to require players to advance after the winning run. It had become a custom for the batter-runner to simply go directly to the clubhouse. The penalty -- to my knowledge -- has never been invoked. Why? Umpires simply wait around until the batter-runner returns from the dugout and touches first. Remember: It's an advance on an award forcing in R3: catcher's interference without a batted ball, balk, base on balls, hit by pitch. BTW: rex writes:
Now, read the AR in the first comment after 4.09(b) PENALTY:
Understand this: It's their book, and they are entitled to do with it what they will. I support that right, and I just hope I'm at a game where I'm in charge sometime when the play comes up. Won't that be fun! [Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 27th, 2001 at 10:58 PM] |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
