PBUC 3.14

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
First, the R3 to home and B-R to first only applies if it's a bases loaded situation.

Evans is wrong, in my opinion, for the bases loaded situation because:

There was a time when, if a batter hit a game winning HR in the last inning, only the "necessary" runs counted and the batter did not get credit for the home run. With the advent of the HR as "big deal" the exception was added to allow, not require the extra runs solely so the Big Dude would get the credit. It was a favor to the batter, and did not affect the outcome of the game. The sole intent of the exception was to get the batter credit. The notion that, as a bonus, the defense could get an inning ending out is ludicrous.

Rich: Evans is not wrong. I was umpiring when 4.09(b) and the enforcement provisions were added to the book.

Batted ball: Everybody must advance, all the way back to Merkle in the Cubs/Giants game of 1908.

Award: Only R3 (balk) or R3 and BR, bases loaded (base on balls, hit by pitch, catcher's interference).

The change is so recent, there are many people still alive who had input on the 1955 and 1957 changes. The background and purpose of the rule are well known.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Apr 4th, 2002 at 10:56 AM]

[Bfair]

Rich, I don't believe Evans is wrong.

I'm a believer that the rules are meant to be fair, and that the rules are meant to be applied equally to both teams. The visitors could hit this same home run and not tag a base a runner forced to advance to and face the liability of the out negating all runs from the play. To not apply that same requirement to the home team is, indeed, treating the teams unequally.

It is also my belief that the players have certain required duties they must complete that began before 3 were out in the half inning and before the game ended. That is why I originally supported and agrued the concept of a batter, starting a play with 2 out, being required to advance to 1B (even after 3 are out) or be at liability of being put out for an advantageous 4th out. I feel the same applies here. Runners forced to advance must advance at least to their forced base (unless the force is removed) or be at liability of being put out. The rules of the game require it.
That concept is supported by the Evans interpretations.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rich Ives]

So two questions

1) Why wasn't it written up that way in the book?

2) How do you resolve the conflict with 4.11(c) the "game ends immediately when the winning run is scored" and the use in the exception in 4.11(c) of the words "permitted to score"

I guess "immediately" doesn't mean "immediately" and "permitted" means "required". I never taught English but I thought I had a pretty good grasp of these two words up until now.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
So two questions

1) Why wasn't it written up that way in the book?

2) How do you resolve the conflict with 4.11(c) the "game ends immediately when the winning run is scored" and the use in the exception in 4.11(c) of the words "permitted to score"

I guess "immediately" doesn't mean "immediately" and "permitted" means "required". I never taught English but I thought I had a pretty good grasp of these two words up until now.

I've never read Evans (until it was posted here), and my understanding was exactly as he stated, based on the reading of the rules book.

I don't see the conflict in 4.11(c) -- all the rules "assume" nothing else strange happened -- so 4.11(c) could have added to it "assuming the defense doesn't then appeal for a third out that would negate the score."

And, "permitted" is the correct wording in the exception -- if the runners don't proceed to home, only the runs necessary to win the game count. Didn't that happen just last season?

[Rich Ives]

My point, based my current understanding of English: If they're not "required" to advance/score then you can't put them out if they don't because it wasn't a requirement in the first place.

If you have a contract that says "seller is permitted to pack the shipment in plastic bags," it does not mean you are required to pack it in plastic bage and the buyer has no recourse if you don't.

Words have meanings. Without meanings, none of the rules are what they seem to be, only what one chooses to make them at the moment. Maybe 1984 arrived and we didn't notice.

[Bfair]

Rich, I think you are ignoring one of the most fundamental concepts of the game-----to advance around the bases legally and score runs.

Why should the visiting team be required to make their forced runners touch the bases and the home team not? The rules state runners need to touch bases they are forced to advance to. Until that force is removed, that rule applies. Was that force removed in this situation? If not, they are at liability of being put out (in this case, by appeal---another rule of the game).

You've put common sense to other issues, but you seem to be sidestepping it here.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[greymule]

Tie score, bottom of last inning, bases loaded, 2 outs.

Batted ball: everybody has to touch the next base.

Award: balk—just R3, no one else; any other—R3 and batter, no one else.

A ball hit over the fence is both a batted ball and an award. Which category does it fall into?

What if the batter hits the ball over the fence and everybody trots around the bases, but the runner on first missed second and is called out on appeal? R3 touched home, batter touched first. The out came afterward. Run score or not?

It seems to me that casebook rulings should establish some principle to go by. PBUC 3.14 seems to violate, for the sake of one situation, at least one principle we're all familiar with.

Note that PBUC 3.15 says that if the batter hits a ball over the fence with the bases loaded and 2 out and then passes the preceding runner before the runner from 3B scores, the run does not count. Yet PBUC 3.13 says that, in the same situation, on a base on balls, if a runner advances past a base to which he is entitled and is put out, the runner from 3B STILL SCORES, even if the out came before the runner touched home. Or would both these plays be ruled differently in a tie-score, bottom-of-the-ninth situation?

[Edited by greymule on Apr 4th, 2002 at 02:53 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
My point, based my current understanding of English: If they're not "required" to advance/score then you can't put them out if they don't because it wasn't a requirement in the first place.

The runners are permitted to score, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BASERUNNING RULES.

One of those rules is that they must touch the next base, if forced. If they don't touch the next base, if forced, and if the defense appeals, then 4.09(a) kicks in.

It's just a rule dealing with a score-keeping issue on a game-winning homerun. Nothing else. The book is witten "by gentlemen, for gentlemen, not by lawyers, for lawyers." Keep that in mind when reading it.

[Rich Ives]

Last post.

Bob Jeknins:

I'm not talking about "an accordance with the baserunning rules"

I'm talking about "permitted" versus "required"

Steve:

As a nit-picker yourself: the point is that the extra runs are not necessary. just a bonus. That is the difference between the visitors in the top of the inning and the home team in the bottom. As such they are permitted, not required.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Apr 4th, 2002 at 04:21 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
Tie score, bottom of last inning, bases loaded, 2 outs.

Batted ball: everybody has to touch the next base.

Award: balk—just R3, no one else; any other—R3 and batter, no one else.

A ball hit over the fence is both a batted ball and an award. Which category does it fall into?

What if the batter hits the ball over the fence and everybody trots around the bases, but the runner on first missed second and is called out on appeal? R3 touched home, batter touched first. The out came afterward. Run score or not?

It seems to me that casebook rulings should establish some principle to go by. PBUC 3.14 seems to violate, for the sake of one situation, at least one principle we're all familiar with.

Note that PBUC 3.15 says that if the batter hits a ball over the fence with the bases loaded and 2 out and then passes the preceding runner before the runner from 3B scores, the run does not count. Yet PBUC 3.13 says that, in the same situation, on a base on balls, if a runner advances past a base to which he is entitled and is put out, the runner from 3B STILL SCORES, even if the out came before the runner touched home. Or would both these plays be ruled differently in a tie-score, bottom-of-the-ninth situation?

[Edited by greymule on Apr 4th, 2002 at 02:53 PM]

Mule:

I'm not sure why you find this difficult unless you enjoy arguing about gray areas.

The PBUC issues interpretations, usually in accordance with the OBR black letter law, that clarify how it wants a situation called.

If a runner advancing on a live ball award (only happens following a walk) should be over-zealous and pass a preceding runner, he is out; but it is not a time play. Why? Because of 7.04(b) CMT and Play.

If a runner advancing on a dead ball award (as happens on a home run) passes a preceding runner, it is a time play. Why? Because of 4.11(c) AR.

Remember, too, that they care not one whistle whether anyone likes their rulings. They simply want to ensure that about 400 umpires follow them to the letter.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Last post.

Bob Jeknins:

I'm not talking about "an accordance with the baserunning rules"

I'm talking about "permitted" versus "required"

Steve:

As a nit-picker yourself: the point is that the extra runs are not necessary. just a bonus. That is the difference between the visitors in the top of the inning and the home team in the bottom. As such they are permitted, not required.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Apr 4th, 2002 at 04:21 PM]

Rich:

I see what you're getting at, but it's not really relevant to the issue.

Correct: After a home run outside the park, the game does not end when the winning run scores. That's "permitted" because the scoring rules committee decided the players should not be deprived of their runs, for statistical purposes only.

On ALL other dead ball awards, the game ends the instant the winning run is scored (and, on a bases loaded situation, the batter-runner touches first).

And the point is...?

[greymule]

So what's the final verdict on the bases-loaded, two-out home run over the fence in the bottom of the ninth with the score tied if the runner from 1B misses 2B? Batter touches 1B, runner from 3B touches home. If the runner from 1B is out on appeal for missing 2B, does the run from 3B score to win the game or not?

Apparently the run would not score in Fed. What about OBR (and NCAA)?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
So what's the final verdict on the bases-loaded, two-out home run over the fence in the bottom of the ninth with the score tied if the runner from 1B misses 2B? Batter touches 1B, runner from 3B touches home. If the runner from 1B is out on appeal for missing 2B, does the run from 3B score to win the game or not?

Apparently the run would not score in Fed. What about OBR (and NCAA)?

Mule:

I don't understand what the discussion is about, as is my wont with your posts.

The out comes on appeal.
It is a force out.
It is the third out.
No runs score. Not in FED, NCAA, OBR. Not in the US, the Domincan, Japan. Not never no where no time no how.

Listen, carefully: The rule at 4.09 distinguishes between two kinds of plays:

(1) runners that score after a batted ball;
(2) runners that score after an award where the ball did not go into play: (base on balls, hit by pitch, catcher's interference).

In (1) ALL runners must advance and touch the next force base.

In (2) only B1 and R3 must advance.

What part of that very simple situation don't you understand?

Only in OBR is the rule different concerning awards where the ball is not put in play.

And even then it would not affect whether a run scored or not.

Play: Bottom of the last inning, score tied, R2, R3, 2 out. B1 singles and touches first. R3 touches home. R2 peels around and goes to his first base dugout.

Who cares? The game is already over. He is not FORCED to touch third.

Give it up!

[greymule]

Carl: Your answer is exactly what I have believed since I was 10 years old. On a batted ball that drives in the game-ending run, all forced runners must still touch the next base or risk being called out on appeal with the run nullified. Every baseball game everywhere. I would never have called that play any other way.

What I'm trying to do is make sense of PBUC 3.14. Why did they word it they way they did? "Runner on first, thinking home run automatically wins the game, leaves the baseline and heads toward dugout. He is declared out before the runner from third reaches home plate." RULING: No runs score; this is a time play.

Don't you sense a strong implication that if the runner leaves the baseline and is called out AFTER the run scores, the run then counts? Why else the emphasis on "before the runner . . . reaches home plate"? If before and after are ultimately irrelevant, PBUC 3.14 should omit that part, or the ruling should say, "No runs score; this is a time play. Of course, no runs would score even if the runner is declared out AFTER the run scores, because that runner's failure to reach second is a force out."

Or is the sole distinction that runner abandons effort (1) before the run scores is umpire's out call, but (2) after the run scores is appeal play by defense?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by greymule
Carl: Your answer is exactly what I have believed since I was 10 years old. On a batted ball that drives in the game-ending run, all forced runners must still touch the next base or risk being called out on appeal with the run nullified. Every baseball game everywhere. I would never have called that play any other way.

What I'm trying to do is make sense of PBUC 3.14. Why did they word it they way they did? "Runner on first, thinking home run automatically wins the game, leaves the baseline and heads toward dugout. He is declared out before the runner from third reaches home plate." RULING: No runs score; this is a time play.

Don't you sense a strong implication that if the runner leaves the baseline and is called out AFTER the run scores, the run then counts? Why else the emphasis on "before the runner . . . reaches home plate"? If before and after are ultimately irrelevant, PBUC 3.14 should omit that part, or the ruling should say, "No runs score; this is a time play. Of course, no runs would score even if the runner is declared out AFTER the run scores, because that runner's failure to reach second is a force out."

Or is the sole distinction that runner abandons effort (1) before the run scores is umpire's out call, but (2) after the run scores is appeal play by defense?

Already someone pointed out that an out for abandoning the basepath IS NOT A FORCE OUT.

Capice?