I ain't letting it go

[rex]

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

[Thane Yennie]

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.

[Patrick Szalapski]

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

[Thane Yennie]

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???

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Thane Yennie
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

[Thane Yennie]

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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
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.

J/R, 95 ed, p. 47.

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 not 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.

[DDonnelly19]

But the important part is not 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.

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

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

J/R, 95 ed, p. 47.

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

But the important part is not 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.

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19

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

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 should 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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Thane Yennie
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???

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

[JJ]

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...

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
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 without touching it 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 ....

[JJ]

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]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by JJ
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.