I've got to be a Jackbull on this one.

OBR-- R2, R3 two outs. R3 scores R2 is thrown out. B/R doesn't touch first.

Gentlemen, (and that's using the term loosely)

There is talk of an interpretation in the J/R that says we can have a fourth out on this play. I am unable to find said interpretation. Somebody please help.

There is also talk of a PBUC ruling supporting (or visa versa) this ruling. I am unable to find that also.

Now I was off the boards for a little while, and I guess I missed the whole thing. But this I believe is an important rule change. That if handled wrong could bring on a real firestorm.

So please let's be civil. Nobody should say if it's right or wrong. I'll just asking for the facts. ("Just the facts" as Joe Friday would say)





rex

Oky-doky here are a couple of spots to check. OBR 7.10 (at least in my BR Book that is where it is. pg 75.) "Appeal plays may require the umpire to recognize an apparent 'fourth out'. If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner the appeal play takes precedence..."

So in your situation. R2 R3 B/R missing first base. If the defense appeals quickly enough (ie before B/R returns to bag) this would in essence become the 4th out and cancel the run scored by R3 OBR 4.09 (a) Exception clause.

Actually, the interpretation to which Rex refers is about a NON-appeal fourth out. I don't have the J/R in front of me, but the interpretation is the last item in the section on fourth outs, IIRC. In short, it extends the spirit/intent of the fourth out rule to non-appeal outs on forced runners or on the batter-runner before he reaches first.

PBUC has verified that the ruling is official for the pros.

P-Sz

So help me understand this ruling. In the situation presented, if I were the PU or BU I could simply rule the B/R out for missing the base even though the defense hasn't appealed. HuH???

PLAY: R3 gets a good way down the line with the pitch, R2 has a normal lead, 2 outs. Ground ball, R3 scores before R2 gets tagged out--three outs. BR, however, gave up before running to first. The defense can then tag 1B for an ordinary out at first which takes precendence over the non-force third out. Three outs, no runs score.

In FED, this cannot occur because FED does not allow for a "fourth" out on a non-force out (remember, the batter is NEVER forced) (FED 9-1-1).

P-Sz

Thanks man for the clarification. If you have been following the Iowa Ball thread you will notice we don't play high school ball here in Wyo. so I am unfamiliar with FED rules. But if I were to enforce this ruling in one of the following leagues: LL, Jr Babe Ruth or Am Leg. I had better have the references/rationale to cite for my decision. Any help in that regard is greatly appreciated.
I do have the NAPBL Ump manual 1997 ed. would it be in there somewhere? I also have the latest edition coming in the mail.

J/R, 95 ed, p. 47.

Quote:

There is also talk of a PBUC ruling supporting (or visa versa) this ruling. I am unable to find that also.

Mike Fitzpatrick, Director, PBUC: email and phone call, 1/27/00, to Carl Childress.

But the important part is <b>not</b> that the B-R didn't touch first; that's an easy appeal and nothing unusual. The situation is: B-R never advanced to first. He simply quit running.

Both J/R and PBUC cancel R3's run when the defense plays on a B-R who did not run out his hit, even though three outs have already been registered.

If you don't like the ruling, take up your complaint with professional baseball, not me. I am not the message.

Is there a difference between a BR who did not attempt to advance to 1B (such as the injured BR in the orginal J/R play) and a BR who merely did not beat the throw?

If this only applies to the former case this pill may be a little easier to swallow...

Dennis

I saw a similar thread on another board and I think the focus was on FED ball and whether or not the umpire should automatically call this a fourth out. Some were of the opinion that neither the BU or the PU should "see" it since they would be obligated in FED to call the missed base without appeal. I am glad I no longer do FED ball but I am also encouraged to hear that in softball FED now requires the appeal. Jim Simms/NYC

Dennis:

Let's get the sequence down and see if you feel any better.

Two outs, R3, R2, B1 singles. R3 scores, R2 is out at the plate (3 outs), and then the catcher's throw to first beats the B-R to the bag?

That's the slowest batter-runner in history.

The point of the play has nothing to do with whether the throw beats B1. It has everything to do with the fact that B1 never tried for the bag.

For Jim Simms:

Jim, you should know my opinion of umpires who don't "see" something because they fear the consequences. There are lots of things I don't see, but it's because there's no harm, no foul.

If your Smittys think they <b>should</b> call the B-R out for the 4th out (I think they're wrong, but...), when they don't do that, it's just dishonest! They should turn in their uniforms.

As I said, I bet two dollars to a penny the FED would not sanction the 4th out in these circumstances. Tell your Bubbas to rest easy.

Ty: It's high school rules. Forget about it. It does not compute in Green River.

Still up in the air for me. FED rule 2-20-2 says, "A half inning ends when there is a third out or when, in the last inning, the winning run has scored. IN EITHER CASE, IF THERE IS A DELAYED OUT DECLARED BY THE UMPIRE FOR A BASERUNNING INFRACTION, A POSSIBLE FOURTH OUT MAY BE RECOGNIZED." Isn't a BR not reaching first base a baserunning infraction? And if it's recognized wouldn't you negate the run in FED (really, in all levels) because the BR never reached first base to end the innning? I guess I just like beating my head against the wall...:)

I believe I spoke on this subject already, in one of my tirades to Freix. There are two baserunning infractions in any book: (1) leave a base too soon; (2) and failing to touch the bases in order WHEN FORCED TO DO SO. Nothing compels the B-R to go to first.

Since thge B-R cannot leave first too early, the only baserunning error the B-R can commit is to round the bag <b>without touching it</b> and proceed to the next base.

Now, JJ, when all playing action is over, you call time and declare him out. If he is the fourth out, of course, then ....

Still being the devil's advocate -
FED rule 8-2-2 says, "An advancing runner shall touch first, second, third, and then home plate in order...", and Penalty (Art.1-5) For failure to touch base (ADVANCING or returning)...the runner is out. After all playing action has ended, the umpire will ... call runner(s) out.", and (page 46) "With two out, if the base was the first one to which the BATTER or runner was forced to advance, no runs would score" (sounds to me like a batter CAN be forced to advance...).
That seem like the contradiction in terms I can't get by - it says failure to touch ADVANCING or returning...the runner is out, sounds like a baserunning infraction to me...then it says "With TWO OUT", which is a selling point of Carl's, but when I go back and read that "runner shall touch first, second, etc. or he's out, and couple that with the batter-runner not making it to first to end an inning on the "fourth out" yadda, yadda, yadda...
Can you see why I'm confused? Or is it just that stubborn streak in me that won't listen to reason?
I'm not arguing with anyone here - just arguing my point...

[Edited by JJ on Mar 23rd, 2001 at 07:29 PM]

I read "fail to touch while advancing" as NOT being the same as "failing to continue to advance and touch after the third out"

See, IMHO, once the third out is made, there can be no more "advancing." Since the base wasn't missed before the third out, it wasn't missed while "advancing." Whatever happens (or doesn't happen) after doesn't matter.

Okay Carl Thanks for the heads-up.

JJ:

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.

<b>My</b> 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 <b>any</b> base (except home!); but if the batter becomes a viable batter-runner, the sequential player <b>must</b> 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 <b>must</b> advance to first."

What the rules say are:<ol><li>every runner must touch the bases in the correct order, first to home</li><li>a sequential runner is out if he doesn't reach his base before a fielder in possession of a live, fair batted ball tags it or him</li><li>the batter-runner is out if he doesn't reach first before a fielder in possession of a live, fair batted ball tags it or him</ol>At issue, then, is only one point: "After three are out, can the batter-runner make a <b>fourth out</b> simply because he never reached first?"

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:<ol><li>Question two: Called out such a batter-runner? OR</li><li>Question three: Seen another umpire call out such a batter-runner?</ol><b> Play:</b>The year: 1938. The teams: AL Chicago and New York. On base are the two Lukes: R3 (Appling), R2 (Sewell). At bat: Greenville, Texas', own Monty Stratton. Two are out. Stratton singles to right. Luke A. scores. Luke S. tries to score, but is tagged out. Bill Dickey sees Stratton still hobbling toward first. His bullet peg to Lou Gehrig is in plenty of time to nip Stratton for the fourth out (?).

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.

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.:)

That's easily answered: The FED, for years, has been very sloppy in its casebook language. It's an error. They are trying to say that the run doesn't score if the missed base is first base or the first base to which a runner is forced. They tried to simplify; they wound up muddying the waters.

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 <b>have to run</b> 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?

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 <b>3</b> outs.

2. If the <b>3rd</b> 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 <b>3rd</b> 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 <b>3rd</b> 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 "<i>apparent</i>" 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 <i>AFTER the 3rd out of a half-inning</i> 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 <i><u>AFTER the 3rd out that ended the half-inning</i></u>. The half-inning is <i><b>OVER</b></i> 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 "<i>apparent</i>" 4th out ON APPEAL is that outs ON APPEAL are deemed to have occurred <u><i>at the time of the infraction</i></u>. That means that, chronologically speaking, the "<i>apparent</i>" 4th out was in fact the ACTUAL 3rd out! Therefore, allowing this "<i>apparent</i>" 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 <b>ACTUAL</b> 4th out and NOT an "<i>apparent</i>" 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,

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

Oz is the Lucky Country yet again!
 

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 <i>my</i> league.

Fortunately for me, I <i>have</i> had a specific direction to the contrary from my UDP. The word Down Under is that we will <i>only</i> 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,

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.

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.

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? JJÂ’s play with runners on second and third? Or was there a different scenario? We have an answer to a play IÂ’m just wondering what was the question?

rex

There is no 2000 edition; it's just a reprint of the 1995 book.

Quote:

You stated that Mike Fitzpatrick answered you question “1/27/00” Was that a typo?

Yes. It should be 1/27/01.

Quote:

What was the play you asked on? The J/R play with bases loaded? JJÂ’s play with runners on second and third? Or was there a different scenario? We have an answer to a play IÂ’m just wondering what was the question?

I asked Fitzpatrick for an official ruling on the J/R play because someone posted it on McGriff's as "authoritative opinion." I couldn't believe it was an accurate ruling, so I asked Mike. Imagine my surprise!

<b>Play:</b> 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. <b>Ruling:</b> 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.

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

There is NO essential difference in these plays, Rex. The pivotal issue is that the THIRD out is made on a time play (R2 tagged at home with bases loaded = R2 tagged at 3rd with no force), and that the FOURTH out is a NON-APPEAL "advantageous" 4th out.

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,

Thank you Warren!

Ya done brought it all together for me and ya donÂ’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 donÂ’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. ItÂ’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 canÂ’t write a rule for each situation.

rex

rex:

That's a good try, but you don't get the cigarette. 4.09(b) deals only with an <b>awarded</b> 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:<ul>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 donÂ’t have to have an appeal.</ul>That's wrong, you know: An award to a B-R that forces in R3 CANNOT end a half inning unless it is the LAST half inning. If it isn't, we just bring up the next batter, and he gets to hit.

Now, read the AR in the first comment after 4.09(b) PENALTY:<ul><i>Approved Ruling: No run shall score during a play in which the <b><font size=4 color=red>third out</b></font> is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.</i></ul>Now, the PBUC insists that should read "fourth out." (grin)

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]

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

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

[snip]

PENALTY (ARTICLE 1-5):
<b>For failure to touch base (advancing</b> or returning), or failure to tag up as soon as the ball is touched on a caught fly ball, the runner is out. <u>This is a delayed penalty if not played upon by the defense during same playing action (live ball). <b>After all playing action has ended, the umpire will indicate time-out to call runners out</u></b>. 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.
<b>EXCEPTIONS: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is
made</b> as follows:
a. <b>by the batter-runner before he touches first base</b>;
e. <b>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</b>.

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. <b>However, <u>B1 should be declared out <i>for failure to attempt to reach first</u></i> 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).</b>

* * * 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) <u>but is required to. That is what Casebook 8.1.1b shows.</u>

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

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.

<b>THEREFORE, by rule, any scored run is negated.</b>

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]

:) 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 "<i>...with 2 outs...</i>" when talking about requiring the batter-runner to advance or be called out. Problem here is we already have <b>3</b> outs, so the passage is not applicable, even if it weren't strictly dealing ONLY with an awarded 1st base. :D

What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be <b>4</b> outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "<u>substitute</u>" 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, "<i>15TH. <b>Three</b> hands out, all out.</i>" (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!

<i>Bad J/R. Bad PBUC. Bad, BAD PBUC.</i> :(

Cheers,

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

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 <b>play is started with less than 3 outs</b> 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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

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... :eek:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be <b>4</b> outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "<u>substitute</u>" 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, "<i>15TH. <b>Three</b> hands out, all out.</i>" (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. :cool:

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:

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: Bad J/R. Bad PBUC. Bad, BAD PBUC. 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.

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

NOW we come down to it....
 

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

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 <i>any</i> 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 <i>ad populum</i> 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 <i>your</i> 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 <i><b>DEFENSE</b></i> 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?

<i>My how a hatred does tend to blind its owner....</i>

Have a nice day.

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

Folks,

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


rex

What beautiful new clothes he has !!!!!!!!
 

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

Consider an apology
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: What the J/R, and now the PBUC, has declared is that there can be <b>4</b> outs in any half inning, with the last out being made a "<u>substitute</u>" 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, "<i>15TH. <b>Three</b> hands out, all out.</i>" (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. :cool:

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.

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

Okay, by the numbers
 

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 <b>right</b> 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 <b>in order</b>, 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

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 canÂ’t figure out from what direction this call comes. Warren says If the league is playing by OBR then by dern IÂ’m acallin it (even if I disagree and canÂ’t find any thing in any book(s) about it). Carl on the other hand who doesnÂ’t agree with the interpretation defends PBUCÂ’s right to make the call but assures us all heÂ’d never make the call nor would he recommend we do. Yet Carl with his vast rules knowledge doesnÂ’t know where the rule comes from.

Now that IÂ’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.

IÂ’m sure that no amount of typing can ever convince either of you that this is a good ruling. IÂ’m sure not the one to even try. So IÂ’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 doesnÂ’t. Now then the odds of this situation ever coming to pass is not something IÂ’d care to bet on. But should it ever happen on a field IÂ’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 didnÂ’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

Ok, Rex, cool and dispassionate now. OBR 4.09(b) is NOT enough, believe me. Here is why:

1. It only covers a situation in which "<i>the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the the last half of an extra inning..</i>" OTOH, the PBUC ruling can occur following ANY 3rd out of any half inning, including the first!

2. It only covers a situation "<i>with bases full which forces the runner on third on third to advance...</i>" OTOH, the PBUC ruling can occur on plays where the bases are NOT full, the runner from 3rd is NOT forced to advance, and where the 3rd out is the result of a time play.

3. It only covers a situation where "<i>the umpire shall not declare the game ended until ... the batter-runner has touched first base.</i>" OTOH, the PBUC ruling does NOT require the play to occur in a game ending situation.

Now, Rex, the reason that the batter-runner is required to advance to and touch first base when the game winning run is forced home from 3rd base is because of the Casebook Comment following OBR 6.08(a). This establishes that other runners are NOT forced to advance, following an award, until the batter-runner reaches and touches 1st base. So, it makes sense in a bases loaded force situation that the winning run from 3rd cannot be forced home until the batter-runner reaches and touches 1st base. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the PBUC ruling, which deals with a non-appeal 4th out in live-ball action following a batted ball.

The PENALTY following OBR 4.09(b) applies only where there are TWO outs, not THREE! The exact wording is, "<i>If, with two out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base...</i>" It cannot therefore apply with THREE outs, and in any case the PBUC ruling was not based on a play in which the batter-runner REFUSES to advance - he was instead <u><i>prevented</i> from doing so by injury</u>!

The reason that OBR 4.09(b) exists is to facilitate the legal scoring of a <u>game ending run</u> where the R3 is forced to advance by an award to the batter-runner. The Penalty only exists to give the umpire a way to resolve a <b>refusal</b> by the batter-runner to formalise that score by touching 1st base. It has NO BEARING on the PBUC decision whatsoever! It does NOT set a precedent that obligates the batter-runner to advance to and touch first base AFTER a 3rd out has been made! There is NOTHING but the PBUC ruling that does that!

Now you may call that response "unloosing your Wrath", but I'd call it a simple sequence of cold, hard facts that clearly establish that your conclusion is fatally flawed. Don't be bothered by that. I have drawn conclusions that were later proven to be flawed, too, and I survived! :)

As to establishing whether the batter runner is "forced" to advance, you need only raise your eyes to the level of OBR 4.09(a)Exception. If the batter-runner is truly "forced" to advance, why then is Exception(1) even necessary? Couldn't it be dispensed with, considering outs on the batter-runner would then be covered under Exception (2)? Where is the logic in discriminating between the two, if they are the same?

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 29th, 2001 at 01:36 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by umpyre007 Quote: Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: Bad J/R. Bad PBUC. Bad, BAD PBUC. 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.

Perhaps old englush teecher shood concentrate on hiz own posts and the numerous spell errars in dem. Physician heal thyself.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19

Quote:

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,.....

Problem is that Willson overestimates his importance. He makes one measly statement that he WOULD follow PBUC interpretations and then spends countless bandwidth and wordiness on tearing it down. This misleads. He has hashed this SAME issue before on McGriff's and it lead to his mental instability.

The above is quite typical of your retorts, even when you were a member of UT.

LOL

When I post something with the word "manaul" in it, that's my arthritic fingers simply failing to type what I know. When you write about someone's "rath," <b>that's</b> a misspelling. And when you can't get the distinction between "it's" and "its," that's just ignorance.

You know, someone said "The medium is the massage." He certainly seemed familiar with your "work." No, "work" is a generous term for what you write. A better description would be "haiku."

Rex,

Don't raise your eyes too high, you may start seeing new clothes that really aren't there. It must be the strain of how high one must s-t-r-e-t-c-h to see some things.

__________________________________________________ _________

<b>I think it is obvious that if one accepts that the game requires a BR to advance to first base, then all of the following make sense:</b>

1) that the PBUC makes BR finish out the play which began with only 2 out thereby requiring BR to advance to first base. This is a proven with their recent ruling.

2) that the Fed and J/R recognize the 4th advantageous out and thereby requiring that the BR must advance to first base

3) that the rules can be read (not by Childress & Willson, but by others) that the BR need advance to first base

4) that the Fed rulebook in chapter 8 refers to a BR being forced to first base

5) that the Fed casebook requires BR to advance to first base

6) that JEA refers to BR being forced to first base (p.166)

7) that the advancing BR at first base is treated the same as a forced runner

8) that chapter 4 of OBR presents an example of BR being required to advance to first base.

<b>NOW</b>, you may accept the fact that the game of baseball requires the BR to advance to first base (as supported the the official interpretations and authoritative opinions) and common and customary practice,
<b>OR..........</b>You can believe as Childress and Willson and remain in a confusion as to why all these don't make sense. Perhaps you choose to muddy it up with verbage (and discuss poor worfing where the rule does not agree with your position) explaining that a BR is not required to advance to first-----regardless of what the official interpretations and authoritative opinions show. (Please note that the wording always seems appropriate when, indeed, it agrees with their position).

Are your eyes and brain to the level where you see wrinkles or do you see clothes?

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas

I don't think anyone would disagree that the BR needs to advance to 1B to avoid being put out, in the same sense that any forced runner needs to advance; he can stay where he is now, but his only safe haven is 90' away. Looking at it that way, one could say that a runner/BR is "forced" to advance if he doesn't want to be put out. Of course, then any runner would be "forced" back to a base on a caught fly ball, and we know that wouldn't mesh well with the rest of the rulebook.

The problem is that the "rulebook" definition of a "forced runner" looks at it differently, and subsequent rulings are based on this definition (sans the FED passage) -- a runner is seemingly "forced" to advance when he can no longer claim the base he occupies as a safe haven; he's actually "forced" to vacate his base. Since a batter never initially occupies any base, he cannot be considered "forced" by this definition.

To summarize, the issue is not that a runner is forced to advance, but that a runner is forced to vacate.

Dennis

Very well put Dennis. However, I will never agree that a runner is forced to re-tag a base, perhaps required to is better terminology.

The PBUC ruling, J/R authoritative opinion, and the Fed casebook all result in the BR not only being forced to vacate (as you put it) <b>but also being required to advance</b> at the risk of being put out if not advancing and touching first base. Whether we want to call this a "force" is really not the issue. <u>The application of the rulings and interpretations is what matters</u>, not the terminology.

Some would rather argue the terminology to muddy the issue.
Just my opinion,

Steve

Dennis:

You put it very well -- but why? There is left but one blow hard -- sorry, I mean "die hard" {grin) -- who doesn't "understand" the point.

Originally, there were three: JJ, rex, and him. Now he's all alone, still attacking Warren and me, still clinging to his pathethic little group name. (It suddently occurs to me he may never have been <b>invited</b> to join any other group.) Likely it's never occurred to him why his "friends" haven't come to his side (rescue?) in this controversy.

For a final time, let me make clear my position on this issue of a 4th out made <b>not on appeal</b>:<ol><li>There is no provision in any rulebook for an umpire to call a fourth out EXCEPT ON APPEAL.<ul>Assume here that a FED umpire calls outs on his "own appeal" when he witnesses a baserunning infraction.</ul><p><ul>Like all books, the FED recognizes two infractions: advancing on the bases and not touching one [plate to second, missing first] and failing to retouch after a caught fly ball. (FED 8-2 Penalty)</ul></li><p><li>Recognizing a fourth out when a B-R, following a base hit, does not run out that hit is the law of the land in OBR games, according to the PBUC.<ul>I certainly support that ruling and urge everyone to apply it in his games -- if the need should arise.</ul></li><p><li>Lacking an official ruling from Hopkins, I do not believe a FED umpire shouuld apply that ruling in his games since PBUC interpretations are valid only for OBR contests.</li></ol>In the ad for Wendy's, the old woman wondered: "Where's the beef?" In <i>Jerry McGuire</i> Cuba Gooding Jr wondered: "Where's the money?" On The Official Forum I'm wondering: "Where's the blame?" What on earth could be amiss with any of the three points I've just made?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 29th, 2001 at 11:30 AM]

What in the hell is the point of this argument then? You claim that the BR is required to advance to 1B, where others claim that the BR is given the right to advance, but is not required to -- and all this has to do with what? A PBUC ruling we all agree is somewhat "fishy" to begin with? Well, I'm not required to pay my taxes, I just risk going to jail if I don't...

Please refresh us of the relevance of your argument, because I'm starting to believe you're just being disagreeable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Lacking an official ruling from Hopkins, I do not believe a FED umpire shouuld apply that ruling in his games since PBUC interpretations are valid only for OBR contests.

In the past I understood you to promote the concept that if one set of rules makes a ruling, and the other set has not ruled (but is still in question), then the ruling from the first set of rules which made a ruling should be used until addressed by the other set of rules.

Was I wrong in this understanding of analogy? (I suspect I can locate support in past posts--perhaps not). If not, does this no longer apply? Does this analogy apply only where one wants it to apply---and not where they don't? Is it used only at certain times to support one's position?

Steve
Member
EWS

Rat (catch up on past history)
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar (if I can include Warren)

neo-
 

As a frequent lurker here, and someone amused by our language, I can't pass up commenting on Bfair's sign-off to a couple of his recent messages,

Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing

According to Merriam-Webster,
<font color="blue">neo-
<b>1 a :</b> new : recent <b>b :</b> new and different period or form of : in a new and different form or manner <b>c :</b> New World <b>d :</b> new and abnormal <b>2 :</b> new chemical compound isomeric with or otherwise related to (such) a compound</font>

Let's see, definition 1a for Neo-Romantic. Recent Romantic. What were you before? unresponsive; unfeeling, unloving; dry? Are you recently married? Recently divorced?

Or, perhaps, definition 1d for Neo-Know-Nothing. Abnormal-Know-Nothing. Hmmm. Makes one wonder what a normal know nothing is like. Or, even an abnormal know-something?

Just funnin', guys. Just ignore this folderol, unless of course you want to reply with good natured flames!

For the record - I'm still on the fence here (it was implied that "once there were three, now there's only one").
I will remain on the fence until an official FED interp/case/clarification is handed down. I respect opinions and documentation that have been presented here by BOTH sides - I just haven't been swayed one way or the other with regard to a FED interp on the play.

Re: neo-
 

I can just add a new line everytime an eUmperor comes up with a new name for me.


Anything You Wish to Call Me

And maybe I too am missing the point.

Bfair is saying that (correct me if I am wrong):

1- FED requires the umpire to call out a runner for base-running infractions without appeal.
2- Not reaching first base can be considered a base-running infraction.

The problem as I see it is all in how you define the term "FORCE" in 9-1-1d below:

FED 9-1-1d: 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);

Lets put it another way.... You have this situation as described in a FED game. You don't like the damn rule but the batter never even vacated the batter's box. Defensive coach comes screaming out of the dugout after you. Everyone in the park knows the batter never came within 80 feet of fist base. He wants you to call that out. You say NO. He recites 9-1-1d.

WHAT DO YOU SAY?

And don't tell me you just walk off the field. You have to justify your inaction.

None of us want to call that out but give me some real ammo not just words.

Buster

Well, I say, "The batter is not forced to first base; therefore, the rule does not apply."

Besides, how could this be considered a "base-running infraction?" If that's the case, consider this play:

R2, R3, 2 outs. Ground ball to F6, who decides to throw to 3B to put out R2. R3 scores before R2 is tagged, but the tag comes before B1 reaches 1B.

Do we negate the run because of B1's supposed "infraction?"

Dennis

Buster: The batter-runner failing to go to first is not an infraction.

How about this: R1, 2 out: B1 rolls to short who flips to second for the third out. Does the batter-runner have to run to first?

How about this: R2, R3 (moving on the pitch), 2 out. B1 rolls to short, who tags R2 for the third out AFTER R3 scores. Does the batter-runner have to run to first?

Good Lord, Buster: You've been calling ball in Texas for 30 years. Did you ever call anyone out at first base during live action <B>FOR THE FOURTH FREAKING OUT</B>?

Buster: It's smoke and mirrors, mirros and smoke.

Hey, Bubba: When I've got three out and no baserunning infraction (missed base/left too soon), I don't have to justify anything to a coach.

ell Illinois FED umpires are worse off than I thought.

You're kidding, right?
 

So let me get this straight, U7:

You say that I "mislead" simply because I am using this BASEBALL DISCUSSION FORUM to actually DISCUSS an official interpretation in BASEBALL that I believe is inconsistent with the original spirit and intent of the rules of the game, not to mention its history and tradition?

You're kidding, right? IOW, you're <i>putting me down</i> for using this forum in the way that it was intended to be used? Get a grip!!

And where did you get all this crap about "mental instability" from? That's an obscene accusation to make about someone, especially when you have absolutely no qualifications or evidence with which to make it!

IMO you are a complete waste of space and a blight on this forum. The sooner you depart the better off we ALL shall be for your absence. Go back to McGriff's where your sort of nasty tactics and spiteful allegations are considered acceptable behaviour.

<i>Jealousy and Hatred are the right and left hands of Satan...</i>

Have a nice day.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 29th, 2001 at 07:32 PM]

"Illinois umpires are worse off than I thought"???

Why - because I want an "official" FED interp here, or because I won't accept your "authoritative" reasons?

Grow up, Carl.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress




Originally, there were three: JJ, rex, and him. Now he's all alone, still attacking Warren and me, still clinging to his pathethic little group name.



I don't think so Carl. I don't ever remember JJ attacking Warren or yourself. And I know I've never attacked me Cobber.We won't go into what I've thought about you.

-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no provision in any rulebook for an umpire to call a fourth out EXCEPT ON APPEAL.


4.09(b) and PENALTY say nothing of an appeal. Case plays yes but the rule no. But the case plays don't address what we've been talking about. Yet the last sentence of the PENALTY would make it the fourth out in our play. There ain't no appeal.

And we all know no run scores if on the LAST out of an inning the B/R is called out before he ____________. (You fill in the blank

------------------------------------------------------------
In <i>Jerry McGuire</i> Cuba Gooding Jr wondered: "Where's the money?" On The Official Forum I'm wondering: "Where's the blame?" What on earth could be amiss with any of the three points I've just made?


No Carl Cuba Gooding Jr said "Show me the Money"
What is amiss with your three points is 4.09(b)

Has any body read the damn rule? It's titled how a team SCORES.

The Fed is looking the same with each new post. But I did enough looking and I'll let you'll be the Jackbulls on that one.


Ps Sorry I forgot to go into WORD--No spell check

rex

It probably just won't ever happen
 

JJ,

It's just that based on past experience, FED is not going to give an "official" interp because the play is pretty basic.

Have you ever had to call a fourth out at first?

Didn't think so.

JMO

Thanks
David

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Buster Light
[B]And maybe I too am missing the point.
WHAT DO YOU SAY?


How about this: R1, 2 out: B1 rolls to short who flips to second for the third out. Does the batter-runner have to run to first?


Nope-- There ain't no run in question so no need for a fourth out.
----------------------------------------------------------
How about this: R2, R3 (moving on the pitch), 2 out. B1 rolls to short, who tags R2 for the third out AFTER R3 scores. Does the batter-runner have to run to first?

YUP-- Now-- He does asper PBUC in pro ball.

--------------------------------------------------------

Buster: It's smoke and mirrors, mirros and smoke.

Boy you got that right, but whos smoke and mirrors?

rex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Buster Light And maybe I too am missing the point. WHAT DO YOU SAY? How about this: R1, 2 out: B1 rolls to short who flips to second for the third out. Does the batter-runner have to run to first? Nope-- There ain't no run in question so no need for a fourth out. ---------------------------------------------------------- How about this: R2, R3 (moving on the pitch), 2 out. B1 rolls to short, who tags R2 for the third out AFTER R3 scores. Does the batter-runner have to run to first? YUP-- Now-- He does asper PBUC in pro ball. -------------------------------------------------------- Buster: It's smoke and mirrors, mirros and smoke. Boy you got that right, but whos smoke and mirrors? rex

Rex: I know it's difficult for you since you missed out on the first four pages. But do try to keep up. Buster and I are discussing FED rules. After you get that, go back to sleep. Please!

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 29th, 2001 at 07:59 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rex

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Originally, there were three: JJ, rex, and him. Now he's all alone, still attacking Warren and me, still clinging to his pathethic little group name. I don't think so Carl. I don't ever remember JJ attacking Warren or yourself. And I know I've never attacked me Cobber.We won't go into what I've thought about you.rex

My wife just lost $10. Boy, is she hot! I bet her $100 to $10 that someone would say I was accusing JJ and rex of attacking me. What I said was: "Now <b>he's</b> all alone, still attacking Warren and me." My wife said, "Papa, nobody's that dumb." I said: "Wanna bet?" She said....

Elizabeth...
 

... at odds of risking $10 to make $100, it was worth the gamble, but I'm not surprised you lost. :)

Cheers,

Warren

Well it is true unlike some I've never been a Sexual intelectual.

If you e-mail me a request I'll tell you what that means. It's an old salesman saying.

So now your wife lost ten bucks cause of me Sorry. I'll send her $10.00 if she'll explain 4.09(b) to you. And another $10.00 if she can get you to listen while she's expaining it.

rex

How about this? I'll let DA MAN explain 4.09(b) to you. (Never mind that we're discussing FED rules.)<ul><b>Historical Notes:</b> The special scoring situation involving a game-ending play appeared in the 1955 Official Rules. The Penalty for failure to comply was drafted in 1957. The exception concerning the obstruction by fans rushing onto the field was implemented in 1976 following an incident in 1975.

All the Approved Rulings following this rule subsection (4.09) appeared in the 1955 casebook.

<b>Professional Interpretation:</b> The Official Notes and Casebook Rulings following 4.09 offer a variety of play situations which implement important enforcement principles concerning third out and game-ending situations.

When the winning run is forced in, it is important for the umpire to be aware of each runnerÂ’s legal obligation, including the batter-runnerÂ’s.<OL><p><LI>if the winning run is <b>forced in</b> [my emphasis] as the result of a batted ball, all runners including the batter-runner are obligated to touch their next bases. The BR must advance to and touch 1st base, and any other runner forced must advance to and touch his next base. If any such forced runner fails to do so, a force out appeal play is in order; and if it is sustained for the third out, no run shall count since the third out was, in effect, a force out. If this appeal force out is not the third out, the runner shall be declared out but the winning run scores.</li><p><li>if the winning run is forced in as the result of an award (e.g. base on balls, hit batsman, catcher interference), the runner from third is required to advance to and touch home an4 the batter-runner is required to advance to and touch first base before the game is over.</li></ol><p>The other runners on base are not required to touch their next bases when the winning run is forced in as the result of an award.

The Penalty prohibits the batter-runner or runner from third from entering the dugout thinking the game is automatically over because of the award.

<b>Customs and Usage:</b> Umpires must be alert in all game-ending situations and insure that all runners fulfill their legal baserunning obligations. Do not routinely walk off the field as soon as the runner crosses the plate. Other offensive players have obligations which affect the status of that run. In addition, the umpire should be aware of the positions of the infielders, if all infielders have left the field (fair territory), no subsequent appeal may be made.

<b>Situations:</b> One out...runners on first and second. The batter smashes a line drive down the right field line. The runner from second scores easily...the runner from first is thrown out at the plate for the second out. An appeal is made on the batter-runner who missed first base en route to second. The appeal is upheld...does the run count?
RULING: No run shall score during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first.

Bases loaded...2 outs...score tied 5-5 in the bottom of the ninth inning. The batter draws “ball 4” and the exuberant runner from third charges home. He touches the plate and exchanges “high fives” with the proud batter. They race off and enter their appreciative dugout. What’s the ruling?
RULING: The batter is the third out for refusing to advance to first. No run scores. (JEA 4:31-32)</ul>

Read carefully, now, and then go back to see the synopsis I gave in my earlier post.

Here's an even shorter precÃ*s:<ol><li>The bases must be loaded.</li><li>The batter must become a batter-runner.</li><li> If he gets a base hit, <b>every runner</b> must advance to the next base.</li><li> If lhe is awarded first (catcher's interference, base on balls, hit by pitch, balk), only he and the runner from third are required to advance.</li><li>The runner from third must be the run that ends the game.</ol></li>The play under discussed has runners at second and third; hense, <b>there is no force play</b>.

Now, see, if you had trusted me (as my credentials prove you should), you would have already known this material and wouldn't look nearly so bad as that other fellow. It seems his case of "I don't like Carl" clouds his judgment just like yours does.

Now, if you're still unconvinced, take it up with Jim at http://www.umpireacademy.com

Carl, I am not suggesting that I would EVER make the darn call. I am just complaining about the FED rule and how the heck to get around it. The defense made the choice to get the third out at the wrong place.
If you have to run the thing out in OBR and it is not specifically addressed in the rules, then why not in FED? FED is making us apply a penalty without an appeal. I also know this is rulebook lawyer crap. Discussing wierd situations and situations that may never come up is what this and other umpire boards are about. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Don't get me wrong, I am not angry, ticked or anything else.

I have read the entire thread and that is what I got out of it when the discussion switched to FED rules. Did I miss something somewhere?

Buster

[Edited by Buster on Mar 29th, 2001 at 09:53 PM]

OK,
 

I am confused as to how those of you disagree with Carl on this issue still think you have a leg to stand on . . .

I mean, at best, Carl and I are lethal enemies, yet it seems so freakin' basic that his interp of this specifc rule is perfect.

I think some of you just fight becasue you are considering the source.

Hang in there Carl, this time you are 100% nuts-on.

Buster:

Call Herb and ask him what to do. Seriously!

But, to answer your questions:

FED rules now:

1. If the batter-runner does not go to first, that is not a baserunning infraction. Those are of two kinds only: a runner misses a base or a runner leaves too soon. (FED 8-2 Penalty; casebook 9.1.1 Situation E)

2. A batter-runner is not forced to go to first. (FED 2-24-5; 9-1-1a/b)<ul>Note: If the out made by the batter-runner was a force out (meaning he MUST advance to the base because of something inherent in the rules), then the rules would not need to provide specific information about how to treat the batter-runner when he is out at first. The Committee would simply say: "A run doesn't score when the third is a force out," and that would cover the B-R also. Such simply isn't the case anywhere.<ul><p>Do not be misled by anyone who quotes 8-2-5: The FED <b>means</b>: If a baserunning infraction is the third out, runs scored by the following runner(s) would not count. <b>With two outs</b> [my emphasis], if the base missed was first or the first base to which any runner was forced to advance, no runs would score.</ul></ul>3. The FED inadvertently omitted the definition of a "force play" when they restructured Rule 2 for the 1992 edition. In all books up to 1992, they wrote:<ul>A force play is a play in which a runner (or two or three runners) loses his right to the base he occupies and is forced to advance because the batter becomes a batter-runner. (FED 2-12-4, 1991 edition)<ul><p> Note: In the front of that book, under rules changes, the Committee listed <b>none</b> for rule two.</ul></ul><p>Buster: You must see this is a no-brainer.

Finally, you write:<ul>The defense made the choice to get the third out at the wrong place.</ul><p>Correct, and since they did that during live action, it is not the umpire's duty to protect them. He does that only when a fourth out results from a baserunning error, and, oh, we did that in number 1 above.

Say "Hey" to Herb for me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Buster: The batter-runner failing to go to first is not an infraction.

Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

<i>"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.
<b>Ruling</b>: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "<b>B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first</b> 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)." </i>

__________________________________________________ ________

Have Carl explain this one to you Buster. Do my eyes deceive me, or does it say "<b>B1 should be declared out for <u>failure to attempt to reach first</b></u>.
Now, read Carl's statement at the top of this page. I felt that umps declared people out for infractions. Maybe it's different in Edinburgh. Maybe they also declare them out for home runs down there. After all, they don't seem to want to make them run the bases.

Although Rule 8-1-1b uses the terminology "entitled" to run, it is obvious the interpretation as shown here in the casebook "requires" the BR to run or else he is declared out. I wonder why the Fed put in this casebook play.
Could it be to CLARIFY ?????

Now, that sure seems to me that the Fed is saying the BR must attempt to reach first base. Let's see what double talk we can get as an answer on this one. Perhaps Childress does not consider the casebook as authoritative as his personal opinions.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 30th, 2001 at 02:05 AM]

IF there are less than three outs -- BR must go to first or be declared out (or put out). That's the case play.

If there are three or more outs, BR doesn't need to (I'd say "can't legally") continue to advance. That's common sense.

I think you're stretching it here, Steve. Here's the difference: your play involves the BR representing the potential third out; the play at issue involves the BR advancing after the third out. There's surely a logical reason why FED added this stipulation...

Nobody on, 2 outs, batter swings at a dropped third strike. Batter starts to walk away, catcher is holding the ball, and nobody is sure what to do. One thing we do know -- the play ain't over until either the third out is made (in this case it can only be on the BR), or until the BR advances to 1B safely. When it becomes obvious nothing's going to happen, it's only common sense we put an end to the madness and kill the play, but we really only have 2 possible outcomes:

- Call the BR out for failure to attempt to advance;
- Place the BR on first for the defense's failure to attempt to put out the BR

Now we've all seen this play before -- dropped third strike, BR hesitates a little before realizing he can advance. So while the defense is figuring out who's leading off the inning, the BR ends up on 2B. That's a pretty good advantage for the offense? So why give the BR first base even when he doesn't attempt to advance? To preserve that offense/defense balance, we call the BR out when we feel he's missed his "window of opportunity." It's not merely that the BR is required to run because he must, but just that something is required to happen, and we can't require the defense to attempt to put out runners, so the offense loses this battle by default.

With the play at issue, the defense chooses to play on another runner for the third out, so the BR is not "required" to advance to end the play, because the third out ends the play. (At least we thought so in OBR.) Again, it's not that only the advancement of a BR can end a play, but that something needs to happen to end the play, and the defense did that in this case. The BR is called out only when neither side attempts to do something.

Hope this makes sense,
Dennis

Not quite the same play
 

Not quite the same play. In this play the BR is out <b> if he doesn't advance </b> because it is strike three on the batter. He's not <b>required to advance. </b>, it's his choice.

If he does advance (and it also adds that within a reasonable time) then he may be put out or he may be safe.

If he does not advance (within a reasonable time) it's simply a strike out.

This is not an appeal play.

Thanks
David



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: Buster: The batter-runner failing to go to first is not an infraction. Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b: <i>"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. <b>Ruling</b>: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "<b>B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first</b> 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)." </i> __________________________________________________ ________ [Edited by Bfair on Mar 30th, 2001 at 02:05 AM]

Thanks for being bold enough to at least address it, Bob. It is apparently something Childress has no answer for.

So, you now agree BR is required to go to first or be declared out <b>if less than 3 are out</b>. This requirement comes from Chapter 8---Baserunning. Being called out is due, therefore, to the infraction of not advancing <b>when <u>required</u> to advance</b>. This is a baserunning infraction---not batting, fielding, substituting, etc---rather , baserunning. It is penalized in accordance with Fed 8-2 Penalty (Art.1-5).

So why may I ask is he not <b>required</b> to go to first to complete a play that started with less than three outs? The PBUC has ruled (in agreement with J/R) that an advantageous 4th out can be obtained at first, and that the BR must complete the play, at least to first base, which he started when there were less than 3 outs or BR risks being put out at first. Therefore, since not going there <b>would be a baserunning infraction</b> he could be put out on appeal. How is that done in OBR---by tagging him or the base. (BTW, that is exactly the means by which the PBUC ruled---correct?). How is that done in Fed---same as OBR, or the official will declare it at end of playing action if not played upon.

Of course, all of this is predicated upon the fact that the PBUC ruled that the BR effectively is required to advance to first base on any play that started when there were less than 3 outs. This is the concept Childress and Willson refuse to accept---despite the PBUC ruling. They don't like the ruling because it differs from their opinion, and they wish not to accept it. Furthermore, appplying it to Fed, since Fed has not ruled, is consistent of past practice of Childress and others. Carl just doesn't want to do it here, because to do so would not support his position.

<b>Let me quote Childress from a previous thread:
Carl Childress, eUmpire, thread "where do these interps come from":</b>

<i>Umpires have four ways to handle “points not covered”: (1) precedent; <b>(2) analogy</b>; (3) authoritative opinion; (4) official interpretation. An umpire who knows how a top dog in his association treated a given play can apply that ruling in his game and — consistency. <u>If something happens in your fED game and you can’t find a rule, use one from another book (analogy)</u>. At least you have some written documentation somewhere to bring to your defense. Authoritative opinion and official interpretations speak for themselves. The BRD has official interpretations from Rumble, Thurston, Deary, Jones, Fitzpatrick, the PBUC minor league staff, and the Instructions to the National League umpries. It includes materials from the FED and OBR case books. You’ll find authoritative opinion from McNeely, Bremigan, Brinkman, Jaksa, Roder, Evans, Wendelstedt, and Winters. You’ll even find two references to the “General Instructions.” </i>

Please note Childress says "consistency". That is the primary factor he lacks in trying to prove his points. He says what he wants to prove what he wants. He wishes not to use his "analogy" concept here because it does not support his cause. Real consistent, Carl. (sigh)

Now, we have no specific Fed interpretation except for a casebook play that says the runner must advance or be called out (running infraction), and a Fed rule acknowledging advantageous 4th out. Both of those, if accepted for this example, would differ from the eUmperors. We have J/R speaking of OBR which differs from the eUmperors. We have a PBUC ruling that could be applied to Fed, but the eUmperors say no (because it doesn't support the position of the eUmperors).

<b>Does no one else see that the eUmperors are saying "just take my opinion and no one else's---even PBUC, even J/R, even past practice of analogy we, the eUmperors, have preached."</b>

Childress keeps saying "Prove to me a runner is required to advance". I have cited the rule. Childress can only comprehend two words of that rule and those are "in order" but he cannot understand the other words of that rule "shall touch" also have meaning. He chooses to only see that which supports his view, and refuses to address that which does not. I have provided authoritative opinion---J/R, PBUC, and Childress himself (quoted regarding analogy)---yet he won't accept it. I have shown Fed casebook and scoring rules---and Childress won't accept it.

Well, Mr. eUmperor, why don't YOU PROVIDE something to this forum beyond your OPINION <b><u>proving</b></u> that the BR <B><u>is not required</b></u> to advance to first base. Everything else, including customary practice of the game itself (which you like to cite) says he is required to advance. Perhaps I am the bad boy because I am not a "snuffalopogus", but I need more than your opinion, and to date, you have provided nothing beyond that. It is always possible the Fed at sometime might rule in accordance with your position, but they may not. Until then, I consider the rulebook, casebook, PBUC, and J/R as higher authorities than eUmperors.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

Geez, Steve, if it makes you happy go ahead and call it that way in FED. You may run across this play once every 15 years. I can't believe you've argued that the BR is required to advance solely to justify your ruling on a play that 99% of umpires will never see. Your arguments have become so complex that I'm not going to waste my time trying to disect them and point out the fallacies in your logic.

We all agree that the PBUC ruling is seemingly in direct conflict with the rules that the defense only gets 3 outs. What if the PBUC did a 180 and reversed its decision? Then your entire argument becomes irrelevant! Instead of attacking Carl, Warren, and all the other "eUmperors", maybe you should attack the PBUC; your efforts are being wasted here.

Dennis

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" -- Booker T

Steve:

Instead of aurguing endlessly about a ruling that FED hasn't ruled on, why don't you have your assoc. contact your state interpretor to get a ruling.
I can assure you in a FED game I'm not opening a can of worms by calling a BR out when 99.9% of the participents would know there is even possibility of a play. That's too much of an advantage to the defense. The calling outs on leaving too early etc. At least every one knows what they are supposed to do. In this play I don't think anyone expects the BR to run it out. Even in a OBR game it would take a pretty savy manager to ask for that appeal.

I think you're beating a dead horse just to bolster your ego. If that is true I would hate to walk on a field with you.

I agree with you there is a point far beyond whether the runner is called out or not. The point is not to bolster my ego. The point is the inconsistency of eUmpires (Snufflers, et al) in grasping and acknowledging only that which they choose to when trying to prove their point, and their willingness to dismiss other points of view if it differs from theirs. Frequently other points of view are then insulted directly or by inuendo.

One preaches authoritative opinion, official interpretation, rulebook, analogy, etc. The PBUC ruling appears disliked and not well understood. One has stated in the thread he would not apply this ruling to Fed. Does that not contradict a previous teaching of analogy? Why not use the PBUC ruling as an analogical source? I suppose because doing so would not support a desired position. Is that not selectively applying the logic? Let's face it, that is really no different than selectively applying the rules. The eUmperors appear to be selectively choosing only that which supports their position. At least that is how it appears to me.

Well, the next time I read what is preached, I must ask myself am I reading what should be done, or am I reading only that which is presented in the manner the eUmperors choose? Am I really getting all the facts?

I don't understand the inconsistency. I am not wrong for questioning it.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

aka: (my eUmperor labels)
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

Again, if you don't like inconsistency take it up with the PBUC!!!! They're the ones who made the ruling that appears to be consistent with the rulebook. Maybe someone should contact Jaska or Roder to clarify their intentions on their ruling, since it seems the PBUC based their ruling of J/R. Maybe the PBUC read into their opinion too much and misunderstood the intent of the situation; the original J/R play did involve an injured BR, and I tried to persuade some that the injury was the emphasis of the ruling, not the failure to advance. If the BR is injured on a play before he reaches 1B, we're going to call him out at the end of playing action, right? Could it be that J/R was implying that the BR's out would supercede any other out made during live action, thus becoming the apparent 3rd out?

Steve, you've put a lot of effort in trying to defend your position, so why not apply the same effort on getting the PBUC to rethink their interpretation?

Dennis

I repeat what I said earlier in this thread. I don't think the PBUC can be applied to a FED ruling because of the administrative methods for appeals. It's gives the defense an advantage that I don't think the FED intended.

I don't like the PBUC ruling although I would enforce it. I Believe it's a red herring because most coaches would never think to ask for it. I think the situation probably comes up often but is never ruled on because of lack of awareness by the defense. So using that assuption that's why I would never do it a FED game. As REFEREE said this month in an article about moving up, you have to know and call the rules according level that you are working. I don't think this is expected nor would be condoned. Unless FED makes a ruling to the contrary then you are just setting yourself up for no advancement. If such ruling is released then coaches would be aware then making that out call is acceptable.

Normally you can take rulings from other sources and apply them else where, but here the systems are too different. It would be nice to get an amswer from FED so Carl can add it to next year's BRD.

I do not know if I am all that opposed to the PBUC ruling. There are two major issues here:

1) Does the third out end the inning

2) Should a BR be required to advance and touch the first required base before being put out

Both have merit.

The third out ending the inning already is not always true. Irrespective of the PBUC ruling, advantageous 4th outs have been recognized for baserunning infractions. So, the sanctity of 3 outs ending the inning is tarnished already.

The batter being required to attempt to advance at least one base is important. Advancing and scoring runs is, indeed, <b>the goal of the game</b>. First base is the "first" base that a BR can acquire. I believe he is and should be required to advance to it until such time as he is put out. He started in the play, make him be part of the play or finish the play. The PBUC, J/R , Fed casebook (IMO), and rulebook all require it (IMO). It can be a boring game without it. Let's face it, a prizefight is not very exciting when a fighter just stands there and gets beat up. Those who watched Jerry Quarry can attest to that. Unfortunately, Jerry did it moreso due to lack of talent vs. lack of effort.

Making the BR complete the play he started by attempting to acquire first or be put out is not an obtuse thought. Interpretations support it, and Childress opinion (with no support data) denies it. If not obtaining first without being put out is considered a running infraction, then it ties nicely into the current wording of the rules (including the scoring rules).

To think that PBUC allows you to physically obtain the 4th out there yet not appeal it is ludicrous. In OBR, the physical act to either put out the BR or to make the appeal are identical. No difference whatsoever. Yet Carl states PBUC allows the putout but not the appeal......what is the difference? The only difference is that Childress says it is not appealable, <u>not the PBUC saying it is not the appealable</u>. The physical act is the same, and the PBUC says the runner is out for the 4th advantageous out. Is Childress attempting to impose his own opinions now as a messenger with those of the ruling? That is not the job of the messenger. <b>Did the PBUC tell you this was not appealable, Carl, or is that just your interpretation? Do you care to answer this?</b> Likely not might the truth be known. No, I am not attacking the messenger. I am questioning the means in which the message is delivered and questioning whether some personal opinion of the messenger may be muddying the message.

With that single point accepted, that a BR must reach first base or run risk of being put out, it brings sense to all the other factors with loose ends. The loose ends Childress has no answer for.

Just my opinion,

Steve

Batter to first. Forced or not?? How about this view of things. Perhaps we should consider the fact that the UMPIRES ARE REQUIRED (FORCED) to determine SAFE or OUT on the batter whenever the batter is ENTITLED to advance to 1B.
In the previously posted situation (I believe Carl's sitch) where there are 2 out and bases loaded and the batter draws a walk, is he forced to go to first? No he could refuse, the PU is then REQUIRED (Forced) to call him out for refusing to advance, run does not score. If his acquiring first base validates R3 scoring the winning run - then the batter might choose to advance rather than face the ire of his teammates and coaches, (spectators, parents, media) So in essence the batter's expectations of long life and happiness might be the motivation that forces him to advance to first base, but the rule book certainly does not.

No one disagrees (I don't think). IF the BR is required to touch first, even after the third out is made, and the BR doesn't touch first, then the run doesn't count.

Where we disagree is in that assumption. I don't think the BR is required to touch first. IF that assumption is true, I think you'd agree that the BR can't be out, and the run counts, right?

Someone in this group (I forget who) mentioned he was trying to get a ruling from NFHS on this. Since we agree it's (a) an unlikely call and (b) we probably wouldn't call it anyway, absent an explicit FED ruling, and since (c) we've beaten this horse way past death, can't we just give it a rest?

Rex -- please,. please close this thread.

Bob,

As I donÂ’t know how to put the lock on a thread I canÂ’t. And even if I did know how I donÂ’t think I would.

There is still my basic question that I feel has never been answered.

What is PBUC basing this ruling on?


rex

I suppose this means you have given up on trying to use 4.09(b) as justification for calling out B1 when he doesn't run. (I say "suppose" since there's no public capitulation from you.)

I can answer your "basic" question just as easily as Jim Evans did your question about a game-ending play. You wrote:<ul><p>What is PBUC basing this ruling on? </ul><p>They didn't <b>base</b> it on anything. They don't have to have a reason. When you deal with anyone in power, if the question is "Why?" the correct answer is always "Because."<p><ul>Note: To close the thread, go to any post. Look down in the lower, righthand corner and find "Admin Options: Open/Close thread." Click there. Since you originated the thread, you simply click (again) Open/Close thread and follow the bouncing ball.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 31st, 2001 at 12:25 AM]

Sorry I'm not a sheep. I don't and can't buy that answer.
You might be the messanger but that ain't the message. THERE IS A REASON.With people like Earl Weaver you just don't and can't say JUST BECAUSE.

rex

rex:

1. So, you don't want to be a sheep, huh? When I spoke to Fitzpatrick, he didn't give ME a reason. I didn't ASK for a reason. I never do. That would make me a goat.

2. You need to move up on the highway and take a paper, rex. Earl Weaver doesn't manage anymore, and the PBUC makes ruling for MINOR league baseball.

3. Let's discuss one last issue.

It's 4.09(b). You were all hot to trot after my friend Thane Yennie brought that up, "Eureka! I've got it, by George, <b>I have got it</b>!"

You wrote: "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 wrote: "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."

That's didn't convince you (because Carl Childress wrote it, and who the hell is he? So...

You wrote: "4.09(b) and PENALTY say nothing of an appeal. Case plays yes but the rule no. But the case plays don't address what we've been talking about. Yet the last sentence of the PENALTY would make it the fourth out in our play."

And...

You wrote: "Rule 4.09(b) is enough. It tells me the B/R has got to run it out."

That one sucked in the EWS fellow, but he looks for any crumb in his attempts to prove he's better at baseball than I am. BTW: Give that Illinois guy credit. He didn't fall for your siren call. Of course, he's still straddling the fence. Oops, that's painful -- for some guys.

Therefore...

I went to a lot of trouble (800 words) to post the passage from the JEA.

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I reminded you last night.

And then you wrote .... nothing.

So I'm reminding you again. You owe me something like: "Geesh, Guys, how could I have been so ignorant. Next time I'll believe Carl when he tells me something about baseball."

That's just common courtesy, Rex, uh, I mean "little r" rex. Is that symbolic, I wonder?

3. Let's discuss one last issue.

Supper!

In past threads you have mentioned how would I not follow the rules of debate. Knowing how you earned your daily bread one would think you might well have been involved with debate teams during your active career.

I was in debating only of a short time but enjoyed it very much. The one thing that really made a debate interesting was when you'd study the hell out of a issue and be all set to SUPORT said issued then at the last minute you where told to AGAINST the issue.

Your opposition had the same facts as you, so now it was all based on skill.

Your skill as a writer is will document. You have all the information.

Now tell me how 4.09(b) IS the rule that supports PBUC's ruling.

After all that's what debate is all about, proving your right even if know your wrong.





BTW-- Carl I thought we had an understanding. I won't play your other game.


rex

You can debate the values of an issue, but you can't debate facts. You can debate why or why not abortion is morally wrong, but you can't argue that Roe v. Wade does not exist, or why the Supreme Court ruled that way.

Carl has given us the PBUC ruling. We can argue why or why not the ruling is fair (which there seems to be no debate on that issue), but rex is arguing why and how the PBUC made this ruling. Unless we ask the PBUC directly their intentions, we don't know -- they just expect us to rule that way.

Again, I plead that if someone is truly against this ruling he/she should take it up to the PBUC directly, because arguing your case here obviously isn't getting anything done.

Dennis

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

And then you wrote .... nothing. So I reminded you last night. And then you wrote .... nothing. So I'm reminding you again. You owe me something like: "Geesh, Guys, how could I have been so ignorant. Next time I'll believe Carl when he tells me something about baseball." That's just common courtesy, Rex, uh, I mean "little r" rex. Is that symbolic, I wonder?

Sheesh...talk about self-gratification. :(

Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

Rex, you simply CANNOT use the Official Baseball Rules as evidence for why the PBUC made a decision. That's what's known as "circular reasoning". Since each and every PBUC official interpretation becomes the Official Baseball Rule on the subject, what you are saying is let's use the rules themselves to help us decide why this is a rule. Illogical and false reasoning.

If the PBUC stated its reasons, as Dennis Donnelly said, then there would be no need for the discussion. Absent that explanation "from the horse's mouth", there can be no inference drawn from elsewhere in the rules themselves to prove why a particular rule came to be. Simply saying 4.09(b) proves that the batter-runner must advance so that's why they allow 4 outs is a <i>non sequitur</i>. First of all, 4.09(b) doesn't clearly establish that the batter-runner is required to advance on the base path after a 3rd out, and even if it did it wouldn't necessarily follow logically that this had anything at all to do with the PBUC's decision to allow the non-appeal 4th out!

Rex, this is a windmill not an ogre and so it's not worth "tilting" at with your lance. What we have been debating is <i>not</i> WHY the PBUC made the ruling, but instead HOW that ruling conflicts with all of those that have gone before to become rules, and even with the <i>ab initio</i> fundamentals of the game. Even before base ball became baseball, 3 hands out was the limit for both the offense and the defense. THAT is why this decision is so incongruent and that is why this debate continues to rage.

Cheers,

[Deleted by moderator]

[Edited by Brad on Apr 1st, 2001 at 08:17 PM]

Re: Justifying the PBUC decision?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
[B]Rex, you simply CANNOT use the Official Baseball Rules as evidence for why the PBUC made a decision. That's what's known as "circular reasoning". Since each and every PBUC official interpretation becomes the Official Baseball Rule on the subject, what you are saying is let's use the rules themselves to help us decide why this is a rule. Illogical and false reasoning.

Cobber,

That would be true if this were a NEW ruling, but it has been dated as being around at least sence 1995. Thats the date of Carl's J/R. Is not my fault he didn't know the rule was there. I'm just the messenger ya know. Don't blame me take it up with the people that didn't inform him it was there.

rex

Thanx Brad

rex

If it's sleeping, don't kick it!
 

Maybe we can get on with the good questions and answers now that this issue seems to be resting?
I can't wait for the games to get heavy, and give some of us a chance to work off some steam.