Score the run

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by SAump

The manager responds, "How can you award a base hit and an RBI when the BR failed to reach 1B before it was tagged?" OBR 6.05j or J/R 6B(2)(b), pg 51

See J/R 6A(5) EX 2 Note {pg 50}: if the runner who failed to touch his advanced base in the example play was the batter-runner (desertion), then the third out was the batter-runner before first base, and the run cannot score by rule.

"i'm not awarding a base hit. if you're so terribly concerned with the scoring of the play, it is a fielder's choice, and, in this case, it was a poor choice because it allowed the run to score before the third out ended the inning."

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by SAump

See J/R 6A(5) EX 2 Note {pg 50}: if the runner who failed to touch his advanced base in the example play was the batter-runner (desertion), then the third out was the batter-runner before first base, and the run cannot score by rule.

what is the example play in his book?

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That was my thinking as well. Did you mention bob j's point about BR failing to touch 1B on a walk-off single, and that play being appealable?

i didn't need to mention that, because that is not the issue. that is in the rules about ending a game. he is required to touch first in order to satisfy the requirements of ending the game. the b/r is not required to touch first to satisfy the requirements for ending an inning. the inning ends when the third out is recorded.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Did the new guy change it? If not it's still in effect.

I wonder if it ever was "in effect". Seemingly, the ruling didn't make it into the PBUC manual. Is an email to a well-known Texan who has no actual connection to MiLB sufficient to establish a ruling? It seems to me that a "ruling" is only effective if it is recorded and communicated to MiLB umpires.

Perhaps the PBUC has some system for collecting and distributing rulings which aren't in the manual, but if not, I'm hard pressed to accept Fitzpatrick's email as a published and effective ruling.

Now, for non-professional games using rules based on OBR, I'd argue that J/R and the BRD are authoritative, since they are the only commonly available published material that covers the situation.

Also, the NCAA actually did publish in 2001 a clarification that allows the 4th out for this situation.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SAump
See J/R 6A(5) EX 2 Note {pg 50}: if the runner who failed to touch his advanced base in the example play was the batter-runner (desertion), then the third out was the batter-runner before first base, and the run cannot score by rule.

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

what is the example play in his book?

J/R Pgs 48-50 dealing with abandonment {a time play}, the out is not a force out. The run can score if it happens afterwards. However, if the defense appeals a missed base, it becomes a force {3rd} out. The umpire should take caution not to coach the defense.

But desertion in OP, the run cannot score by rule. Also supported by J/R 10-IV.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by tballump

As each runner and umpires know prior to the batter hitting the ball, the appropriate play in this case is to first base to start with, since this will negate any runs scored due to the rule about the batter being put out at first base for the 3rd out (first rule of baseball). However, in this case the 3rd baseman elects to use (remember he has a choice) the "tag play" which creates a "time play" situation on a non-forced runner and hopes he makes the tag prior the runner touching home plate. Since the fielder elects this choice to make the 3rd out, it is too bad that after making the tag for the 3rd out he now remembers the first rule of baseball and throws to first and gets the slow batter runner for a 4th out. This 4th out is not recognized in this situation. Not our fault fielder forgot the first rule of baseball, and decided on the tag play option for a legitimate 3rd out. However, since the homeplate umpire has ruled the runner from 3rd scored before the tag at 3rd on the runner from 2nd, the run scores on the time play.

Now, if the batter runner never advanced to 1st for whatever reason (runner forgets first rule of baseball) or over-ran 1st and on appeal is called out that is where the 4th out interpretation would come into play and now the 4th out is recognized and the run is wiped off the scorebook. However, for more help on this topic, if Fitzy was consulted, it would seem whatever he said would stand since he has a more intricate knowlegde of the rules and interpretations for these types of "knotty problems". Also, I do not know if Chris Jaksa and his partner(sorry I forget his name) are on any posts, but if they are, I would think they might could add some intelligent input on this particular play situation and give some insite into what is and what is not and why, like Dr. Steitz used to do in basketball. Anyway this is just my 2 cents as you guys would say, and I am just a rookie at these posts and always will be since I am just a tballump and my knowlege, unlike yours is limited (maybe I shouldn't have commented at all and just lurked). Seems like several of the umps and moderators here are on top of the game and its rules and have lots of experience and maybe they could contact Chris Jacksa or Rick Darby (I remembered?) for extra insight, but it looks like they are on top of this anyway.

Where is the rule citation, a case play, etc., for this ruling?
How can the umpire justify allowing the run to score?
How can the umpire justify not recognizing an obvious 4th out?
J/R 10-IV!

[bobbybanaduck]

from the OP:

"BR is 1/2 way to 1B "when the tag of R2 is made", BR kicks the dirt and heads towards his 3B dugout to fetch his glove and hat."

i would entertain the desertion scenario if, and only if, the b/r immediately went to the dugout or to his defensive position after hitting the ball, making no attempt whatsoever at going to 1B. in the OP, he was 1/2 way to first when the tag was made. the tag ended the inning and removed the requirement for him to advance to 1B...which means he can no longer desert or abandon anything cuz the inning is over.

[kopan99]

5.07 When three offensive players are legally put out, that team takes the field and the opposing team becomes the offensive team (side retired) [assumption being that the ball is dead between innings?]

2.00 An APPEAL is an act of a fielder in claiming a violation of the playing rules by the offensive team. [An appeal can only be made based on a violation of baserunning rules in 7.10 a-d. Failing to reach first base during a fielders choice putout is not a violation of the baserunning rules.]

Rules 7.10 a through d lists the four instances that can be appealed (a-fly ball tag up; b-missed base; c-overrun and return to first base; d-miss home base).

Rule 7.10 NOTE recognizes a fourth out ONLY if an infraction occurs before the third out. The batter/runner not reaching first before the third out is not an infraction, because baserunning appeals can only be made in accordance with infractions 7.10 a, b, c, or d.

If the batter/runner has passed and missed first BEFORE the runner (R2) was tagged for the third out, then that would be an infraction BEFORE the third out, allowing an appeal to be made for a fourth out (no run scored).

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

"i'm not awarding a base hit. if you're so terribly concerned with the scoring of the play, it is a fielder's choice, and, in this case, it was a poor choice because it allowed the run to score before the third out ended the inning."

It would not go down as a fielder's choice or error. It would go down as a protest of 4.09, 6.05j, 7.12. The fielder's choice was to tag R2 for the 3rd out and to throw out the B/R for the 4th out. There was no guarantee of a good throw to 1B or an out on a speedy B/R to erase the run. The fielder did exactly what he is required to do. He did not make any mistakes and he was unfairly punished for his excellent play-making skills. It was also dumb that R2 allowed himself to be tagged out by F5 {1st rule of baserunning outs, to tballump}.

Taking away the fielder's choice to protect himself from making a bad or timely throw and ending the inning pre-maturely after the 3rd out was made at 3B is incorrect. The B/R actions are also important evidence. If he beats the throw to first, score the run. If he doesn't beat the throw to first, take it away. This becomes a protestable situation unless you can correctly justify the end of the inning. The 4th or 5th outs become the 3rd out, for all purposes, and cannot be meaninglessly tossed aside. As a manager, I would not allow my team to leave the field until my protest was recognized.

PBUC recognizes that any protestable issues may cost a MiLB umpire his job. Study the OBR rules carefully, and realize that not all customs and traditions are emphasized correctly. This may be one of those 230-something errors noted in the rules by J/R and others.

[bobbybanaduck]

add a former chief instructor at jimmy's to the list that disagree with fitzy's interp (which, still, nobody has been able to produce and submit as evidence.) exiting discussion at this point, leaving with the summation of why we came up with what we did...

- inning ended when tag of R2 occurred (absent of any appealable offense, of course)

-apparent 4th out can only occur on an appeal

- B/R is not required by rule to continue running to first after the inning has ended (so this is not appealable)

- B/R did not desert as evidenced by his position 1/2 way to first when the tag was applied (so we aren't banging him for desertion and ending the inning there, instead of upon the tag of R2)

protest is recognized...

protest on 4.09 disallowed because the 3rd out was made on R2, which satisfies 4.09a exceptions 1, 2, and 3.

protest of 6.05j disallowed because the inning was over per 2.00 definition of inning

protest of 7.12 disallowed because it was not the 3rd out. the 3rd out occurred when R2 was tagged.

[SAump]

Note: The third out did not terminate the inning. For example, one can apply the same OP situation and ruling w/ 1 out, instead of 2. Let us go to Rick Roder for a valid reason, 10-IV Ex 3, which has also been noted earlier by RichMSN, Bob J and others.

Not an appeal: ... this is an advantageous fourth out and supercedes the former third out, and no run can score.

Subsequent outs are not only possible, but recognized by the authority of MLB and PBUC Staff. How can you not rule on a batter-runner half way down the baseline when F3 tags 1B for a non-routine DP? Support your position while remaining faithful to the principles of the game.
BRD 410, pg 451 to 452.

That, my friend, falls under res ipsa loquitur.

[UmpTTS43]

I think kopan99 said it best and laid it out logically. This is the closest thing I have been able to find in my library concerning this sitch.

Taken from The Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual Pg. 115 Appeals, Copyright 2008

"P22: R2, R3, two outs, 1-1 count. The batter hits a ball down the right field line. As he reaches the 45' line, the BR severely twists his ankle and falls down. R3 easily scores, and R2 touches third base and attempts to advance to the plate. The right fielder, not seeing the BR lying between home and first base, throws the ball to home plate. The throw beats R2 easily, and he is called 'out' by the plate umpire. The defense, then seeing that the BR has not yet reached first base, tags first base, appealing that he never touched it.
Ruling: The umpire should not recognize this appeal. A runner cannot be appealed for 'never reaching a base'; only for not touching one on his way past it, or for not legally tagging up from it. In this situation, the third out has already been made at the plate on R2. R3's run counts. The defense is required to know that the BR has not reached first base, and if they would have retired him at first base, instead of throwing the ball to the plate to retire R2, no runs would have scored."

With kopan99's rule cites and Wendelstedt's interp, I now know how I would rule on this.

[soundedlikeastrike]

From JR: Not an appeal: ... this is an advantageous fourth out and supercedes the former third out, and no run can score.

But, add in the rest of the EXAMPLE; and it's clear to see that this ruling was made on a specific play, by JR and according to NCAA..
A BR that "can not" continue to first due to injury.. So in that case I'd agree, though IMO it should simply be recognized as desertion as opposed "missing a base..

The rest of J/R 10 IV 3. "..The batter has been injured and is UNABLE to advance to first, prompting the defense to throw to first against him..."

NCAA says it's an "appeal" because the runner "CAN NOT" continue..

Nothing in PBUC "appeals" comes close to this situation, rather all their examples are "missed bases, leaving early, you know the real stuff appeals are made of..

[SAump]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

I think kopan99 said it best and laid it out logically. This is the closest thing I have been able to find in my library concerning this sitch.

Taken from The Wendelstedt Umpire School Manual Pg. 115 Appeals, Copyright 2008

"P22: R2, R3, two outs, 1-1 count. The batter hits a ball down the right field line. As he reaches the 45' line, the BR severely twists his ankle and falls down. R3 easily scores, and R2 touches third base and attempts to advance to the plate. The right fielder, not seeing the BR lying between home and first base, throws the ball to home plate. The throw beats R2 easily, and he is called 'out' by the plate umpire. The defense, then seeing that the BR has not yet reached first base, tags first base, appealing that he never touched it.
Ruling: The umpire should not recognize this appeal. A runner cannot be appealed for 'never reaching a base'; only for not touching one on his way past it, or for not legally tagging up from it. In this situation, the third out has already been made at the plate on R2. R3's run counts. The defense is required to know that the BR has not reached first base, and if they would have retired him at first base, instead of throwing the ball to the plate to retire R2, no runs would have scored."

With kopan99's rule cites and Wendelstedt's interp, I now know how I would rule on this.

Ruling: The umpire should recognize an inning-ending double play. No appeal should be necessary.
"IN JEOPARDY is a term indicating that the ball is in play and an offensive player may be put out."
"A DOUBLE PLAY is a play by the defense in which two offensive players are put out as a result of continuous action, providing there is no error between putouts."
R2 allowed himself to be tagged out by F2 {1st rule of baserunning outs}.
B/R allowed himself to be thrown out by F2 at 1B {1st rule of baseball}.
Using this case play and asking for a "more appropriate" OBR based ruling, what I got is a DP.

Note: If rule 7.10 does not apply, then rule 7.10 has no bearing on the matter. Yet, the Wendelstedt case play continues to use rule 7.10 as the basis for making up an alternate ruling. Also skeptical of the "3rd" and final tag-out at HP ending the inning. Most baseball officianados would agree the tail-end of a double-play successfully ended the inning. Someone may address the same Wendelstedt case play with no one out or with only one out.