Can anyone clarify the following from PBUC 3.14?

Play: Bases loaded, two out, score tied in bottom of the ninth inning. Batter hits home run out of ball park. Runner on first, thinking home run automatically wins the game, leaves the baseline and heads towards dugout. He is declared out before the runner from third reaches home plate. Other runners continue around the bases and eventually touch home.

Ruling: No runs score; this is a time play. Game continues in the top of the tenth inning with the score tied.

Fine, but why the clause "before the runner from third reaches home plate"? Even if the runner from third crossed home before the runner the runner from first was called out for abandoning effort, wouldn't that runner's out be the third out on a force play and nullify the run anyway? Or is it just the batter who has to touch first (and the runner from third to touch home for the winning run)? Don't all forced runners have to touch the next base?

The runner was declared out for abandoning. He was not put out by the defense (appeal or otherwise) as a result of a force play. Therefore the out is not the result of a force.

The runner at 1st base should have allowed the 3rd base runner to score before he left the field because of the timing play. Force play is not in effect because of the home run.
Jackie W.

Jackie - the force IS in effect. If a runner missed a force base then the defense could appeal it and get an out. If it was the third out no runs would score.

Rich: What if the batter had abandoned his effort to go to first after the run scored? If the third out is made by the batter before he reaches first base, no run can score, regardless of why or how the batter is out. Is a runner forced from first to second any different?

Jackie: The home run does not remove any force plays. If the runner on first missed second while trotting around the bases and was called out on appeal, that would be a force play and no runs would score, regardless of whether another runner scored before the out.

I was viewing this post with my partner when I sent in the reply. The funny thing is I asked him if he was absolutely certain that there wasn't a force play in effect. His reply is that once the runner from 3rd crossed home plate, the game would be over.(being that it was the bottom of the 9th) So, was my gut feeling correct when I asked him if he was sure?

Jackie W.

Greymule: to get the force out, the defense would have to appeal. Being called out for abandonong does not meet the requirement - and

Jackie: Both the runner from third must touch home AND the batter must touch first (see 4.09). As for the other runners, it's ambiguous/undefined.

QUESTION
 

Rich:

Just wanted to clarify:

You said that "Both the runner from third must touch home AND the batter must touch first (see 4.09). As for the other runners, it's ambiguous/undefined."

Are you saying that runners that were originally at 1st and 2nd do not have to advance to next base? I would think those could be appealed and be called the 3rd out due to force. Am I incorrect?

Good thread here.

Zach

Third Out Force; No Score
 

A runner who is called out in a force situation is a forced out regardless of how he is called out.

In a bases loaded situation with two outs, all runners including the batter-runner must advance one base in order for the score to count.

The general rule is to remember that there is a force play in effect at the pitch, it doesn't go away until all runners including the b-r advance.

Rich Coyle's post states what I always believed, but both the PBUC and the OBR suggest that we're incorrect. Maybe there's some sort of exception when the game-winning run is involved.

The PBUC specifies "before the runner from third reaches home plate," which clearly implies that a runner out for abandoning effort, even to a forced base, AFTER the runner crosses home would not disallow the run.

OBR 4.09 (b) says, "When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has reached first base." It doesn't say "until all runners have reached the next base" or "the base to which they were forced."

I would think a ball hit over the fence is a play "which forces the runner on third to advance." Apparently, when the winning run is involved, only the batter and the runner from third have to proceed to the next base, and all the other two runners have to do is avoid being called out before the run scores. What if the runner from third scored, but the runner from first was called out for abandoning effort before the batter reached first base?

I think these particular variations are not too far-fetched.

The "winning run" scenario in OBR 4.09 is a special case of the bases loaded situation, not a general rule for a mid-game two out bases loaded HR. In a mid-game situation the defense could appeal a missed force base and negate the runs.

For game-enders, a strict reading of 4.09 says only that the runner from third must touch home and the batter-runner must touch first. However, it also referes only to a bases loaded situation (runner from 3B forced), so in theory if there was no one on 2B, the runner from first (forced) would still have to touch 2B (Fred Merkle for example).

Another example of why the rules need a re-write.

Confusion with dual-sport umpires and fans may arise because in (some?) softball rules, all runner's must advance, per a discussion last year on the SB board at this site.

IT's also a difference between OBR and FED -- in FED, all runners must advance.

I think OBR just took the easy way out -- why force (pun intended) the offense to go through the ritual of having all runners touch the next base when the game is ended anyway, everyone knows they know how to advance 90', etc.

Yes -- that logic could be applied to other situations -- why force everyone to run on a HR, for example. I think that's still there so the player can hear the cheers. ;)

Good humor on the baserunning for the cheers, Bob! They would also miss out on all the pats on the butt and back!
I needed the laugh today. I'm tired of getting game cancellation calls because of the snow falling. People in Minnesota are paying for the mild winter.

Jackie

Specifically addressed in rule 4.09(b) of JEA:

<ul>(1) If the winning run is forced in 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.

(2) 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 and the batter-runner is required to advance to and touch first base before the game is over. 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.</ul>


Freix

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 <b>allow, not require</b> 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]

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 <u>began</u> 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 <u>required</u> 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 <u>must</u> 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

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?

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

Mule:<p>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 <i>live ball award</i> (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 <i>dead ball award</i> (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.

Rich:<p>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...?

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:<p>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!

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?

So on the two-out bases-loaded game-winning home run with the score tied, if the runner from 1B misses 2B, he can be called out on appeal and the run will be nullified because that's a force play. If he does not miss second but simply fails to advance and touch it, that's not a force play, and the run scores as long as R3 touches home and the batter touches 1B.

Mule:<p>No, that's not what I said. That's not what authoritative opinion says.<ul><p>During a force, any consecutive runner who abandons his advance base is not a force out. However, an appeal of the abandoned base as a missed base can be upheld for an advantageous fourth out. (see second example below). (J/R, 5th ed., p. 24)</ul><p>Here's the "second example below":<ul><p>R3, R1, game tied at 2-2, bottom of the ninth inning, 2 outs. Base hit. R3 touches home plate as the apparent winning run and the batter-runner touches first, but R1 goes to join in the celebration at home plate without advancing to <b>(or near)</b> [my emphasis] second base: technically, R1 is out for abandonment, but this is not a force out, and the run can score. If the defense were to appeal that R1 had not touched second, there would be a force out, and no run. Hence, the umpire should not declare an out until the defense appeals the missed base.</ul><p>Calling out the runner would result in: (1) The defense thinking no appeal was available; or (2) The umpire alerting the defense to the fact that an appeal was available at second. The statement that the umpire should not declare an out before an appeal is, therefore, simply a mechanics admonition, not a statement of a current "interpretation."

The comment "or near" is merely recognition that a runner who reaches a base is considered to have touched the base unless the defense appeals an actual miss.

Obtaining a copy of the J/R would vastly simplify your learning OBR rules and current practice.

NO.
 

NO.

If R1 passes second without touching it it would require an appeal to get the force out at second and nulify any runs.

If R1 never reaches second and is not called out for abandonment all the defense needs is a tag of the runner or the base to get the force out and nullify any runs that have scored.

If R1 is called out for abandonment the runs would score and an appeal at second for the force would be needed to nullify any runs.

As was said, the abandonment is not a force. G.

Re: NO.
 

Gee:<p>Very well put.

Thank you, Carl and G. I finally understand this play and can sleep at night. Where do I get a copy of the J/R?

Send $25 which includes S/H to:


RICK RODER
PO BOX 2
REMSEN IOWA 51050

G.

Force on HR award?
 

Carl,

Thanks for your explanation of the JEA treatment of the difference between a live ball award and a dead ball award on a game ending home run. It was very helpful.

On any HR, why is R1 not considered "forced" to touch third? A HR is unique in that it appears to be the only circumstance in which R1 must touch second and third by reason of the batter becoming a runner. The tradition obviously is that one is only forced to touch the "next" base, but I wonder why that is. (As if consistency were a virtue in OBR?)

Don't fully understand your question.

With the bases loaded and a walk off home run, all runners, including the B/R, must touch their advance consecutive BASE for the winning run to score.

However, all runners including the B/R, must touch all bases for the home run to count and not be nullified by an appeal. Am I missing something? G.