Score the run
 

Sit.
R3, R2, 2 outs.
Ground ball to F5, R3 and R2 are going on contact.
F5 gloves the ball, runs at and tags the hung out R2 for the 3RD out.
R3 touches HP prior to the "tag" of R2.

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.

F5 seeing BR stop, now throws to F3.
F3 steps on 1B and appeals; "the BR did not advance and touch 1B".
The advantageous 4th out is: "recognized by the umpires, as the 3RD out, on the BR, before he reached 1B, wipe off the run.

Can't appeal abandonment.

BR cannot abandon his responsibility to run to 1st base. Abandonment is only for runners that are on base already.

The BR has been appealed, this is the 4th out - no run scores.

I don't think so. What about the batter heading for the dugout after a dropped 3rd strike?

It's still the advantageous 4th out. No run scores.

The rule specifically says something like, "A runner is out when .... after reaching first, he abandons his attempt to reach the next base"

Somebody (J/R?) calls the BR leaving the baseline "desertion."

Yep, that's J/R applying the term "desertion" for the B/R.

The runner hasn't safely touched 1B before the 3rd out...no run. I don't understand the advantageous 4th out appeal here...that wouldn't be right would it?

R2 was tagged for the 3rd out. BR never touched 1st so the defense has the right to appeal the BR. This appeal creates a 4th out which negates the run. The 4th out is rarely seen because most teams don't even realize that it exists and many amateur umpires don't realize it either! Anytime a BR gives up on a 3rd out not made by him is subject to appeal

great situation to bring up on here.

This might be a stupid question but what if BR keeps running and touches first base (either not realizing the third out has been made or whatever) after the tag on R2? Is the run still nullified because the touch was after the third out?

No. Score the run. The advantageous 4th out is no longer possible.

well, you wouldn't have anything to appeal for the advantageous 4th out appeal. If BR reaches 1B, then, IMO you have a time play. Did the tag take place after R3 touched HP? If yes, count the run. If not, no run.

I still don't know if this sitch (OP) qualifies as an advantageous 4th out appeal. Since the 3rd out already happened, BR doesn't have an obligation to touch 1st does he?

I agree. Now take this: BR rounds first, but misses it -- then the third out is made by tagging BR as he slides into second. Can BR still correct his error?

Wow, Bob. This one gets heavy.

Can a retired runner correct a baserunning error? Well, he can be appealed, and he's still on the field so it would seem unfair to not let him do so.

But can you have an advantaqeous 4th out when the 3rd out was made by the same player? Would the batter be 0 for 2? (just kidding)

I would let him correct the error. And I stand ready to be corrected.

I don't think that it would be possible for the runner to correct this mistake. Once he rounded first, we (as umpires) assume that he touched the bag until appealed. At this point, the BR has completed his responsibility to touch 1st.

In the OP the BR never bothered to complete his responsibility although he could have tried to do so before entering the dugout. :eek::eek::eek: You're right..... it's getting deep!

Why can't the runner correct his mistake? The only problem is that he must correct his mistake before being called out by appeal. If he is out by appeal then he was put out before he acquired first base.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,
He's a retired runner at this point - I don't see how he can correct anything, even something that happened prior to his being retired.

Are we on the 5th out?

No, he is out. Defense could appeal him missing 1B for advantageous 4th out though.

The defense cannot appeal BR. You can't appeal a runner at a base he never reached. The out is automatically called by the umpire.

If you say that the defense can appeal BR in this, then the flip side is that they would also have the choice not to. if that was the case, how exactly do you account for BR absent an appeal? He never reached first, yet was never put out. It is this contradiction that shows why this is not an appealable offense, but an automatic out.

To take it a step further, let's say that we have the same situation in the OP, but with no one out. The play happens the same way (touch of home, tag of R2, BR gives up.) Now there is one out, and BR is sitting in the dugout. If we use your logic, and the defense appeals the out, then we have two out. What happens if a pitch is thrown instead? BR was never put out, but he's not on base. Do you go and get BR out of the dugout and put him on first?

In short, desertion is an automatic out, not an appeal.

If the throw was before the BR went to the dugout, it would be recognized as an advantageous fourth out. It's idiotic, but analogous to the play posted by Carl a few years ago where those in charge were presented with a scenario where the batter blows out an ankle and a non-forced runner is put out for a third out when the runner scores. The powers that be (I don't remember who, exactly, perhaps Fitzpatrick) said that you could, indeed throw to first and have that be an advantageous fourth out.

I'd be hard pressed to call the BR out for desertion, though, for failing to run to first AFTER a third out was recorded elsewhere, authoritative opinion be damned.

I agree, but in the situation you bring up, the throw precedes the desertion.

This is where I'm torn. On the one hand, the run precedes the third out. On the other, the BR never acquires first.

Sounds like that's the case in the OP, too. He's heading for the dugout when the throw is made. He doesn't desert on a batted ball until reaching the dugout (assuming nothing has changed), unlike the new rule where leaving the dirt circle on the uncaught third strike is evidence of desertion.

I agree, and I agree with the general mind that the defense can record an advantageous 4th out. The BR missed a base, so the appeal would negate any run scored on the play.

It's less clear to me in the OP that the defense is entitled to an advantageous 4th out. My concern is that the so-called 4th out may be granted on appeal, but throwing BR out at first is not an appeal play. And I don't see why BR is obligated to run to 1B after 3 are out. So how could he abandon/desert?

PLAY: R2, R3, 2 outs. Batter grounds to F5, who tags R2 (not forced) after R3 has scored. F5, thinking that there was only 1 out, fires over to F3 to complete a double play. F3 was set up to receive the throw anyway, and he catches the throw from F5 with his foot on 1B, prior to BR reaching the base (he was running all the way, no desertion, abandonment, etc.).

Score the run? If so, how is this different from the OP?

Steve:

You are correct. I forgot about him being tagged out at second. I was more concerned about getting the advantageous fourth (4th) out.

MTD, Sr.

Matt, you are wrong.

2008 BRD Section 3

You can appeal for the advantageous fourth out.

FED per Hopkins
OBR per Fitzpatrick

Thanks Rich, I am at a different work location and I do not have any of my files with me.

This is referred to as desertion if a runner fails to go to 1st base, as required!

Umpire would automatically call BR out, when he reaches dead ball territory in NFHS, when he leaves the established baseline in NCAA or PRO. If he does either of these things before the 3rd out, then no run would score. If he does so after the 3rd out, the ball is already dead and you have nothing!

That would seem to be my point. :rolleyes:

It is not dead. Otherwise, you could never have an advantageous fourth out appeal since PRO/NCAA rules require a live ball for an appeal.

True. Which brings me back to my other point: why would a play on BR at 1B be an appeal? Why would desertion be an appeal? References?

No, I'm not. If you throw to first before the desertion, then it is a normal put-out. If you throw after, it's moot.

Well I guess that there are many of us that are doing it incorrectly including the former head of he PBUC and the instructors in the MLB schools. I really don't give a crap anymore!

OP has no reference to desertion, that's not considered.
For this post, say the BR runner is running it out, no difference how far the BR gets, once there's 3 outs, who cares.

BR is trying for 1B, sees the tag of R2 for the 3RD out, and heads to where ever offensive players go once there are 3 outs.
I just can't imagine anyway to consider this a base running violation..

I can't help but think, this was simply not "thunk through" before somebody put an interp in writing.

OBR says: no run "if the 3RD out is recorded on the BR before he touches 1B".

We all agree that if indeed BR misses 1B prior to the out, he is subject to the appeal and nulifying the run...

This sit. the "third out" is recorded on R2, a non forced runner..prior to any running violations, a timing play, by any rule set..

How can a violation that occurs after 3 outs even in the wildest stretch be considered?

Somebody has drunk the poison; ruling this an advantageous 4th out IMHO.

Can someone post the exact quote, from the various mentioned authoritive figures/publications? I can't find anything in PBUC, JR, OBR, that would lead me to rule this way..

Seems as simple as: a runner can be safe, out, or in jeopardy.
BR has no opportunity to be safe (there's three outs), so he's not in jeopardy, if your not in jeopardy you can't be retired...

This seems one that should be destined for "BB rules myths" if you ask me.

"All runners must advance to their next base after the third out".

I think something "that big" would be hi-lited and bold in any rule book.

Somebody read "if on the BR before he reaches 1B, and has streeeetched it,, well beyond what it meant/intended, IMHO.

Hope they get it fixed quickly...Like before I ever see it on a field..
Or shoot have I seen on a field, probably..
Has anyone ruled this way on the field, ever?

soundedlikeastrike,

This is the best I could find. Reading this, I would uphold the 4th out and not allow the run, using the second part of 7.10(d) listed below. The 4th out "takes precedence," thereby not allowing the run to score.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

7.10(b) is about missed-base appeals. BR has not missed 1B.

7.10(d) is about appeal plays. But why think the OP is an appeal play?

Good catch, Rich. Authority says to grant the "appeal," call BR out, and negate the run.

Doesn't make sense to me, but that's the way they want it called.

FWIW, this play (or a very similar one) caused a big bruhahah in the relatively early days of internet umpiring (heck, it may have even been on r.s.o.) IT's not well covered in the books, but the interp did seem to come down (as I recall) as described here.

I explain it as, "The rules also say that the game is over when the winning run scores. but, we'd both require and allow BR (and other runners) to fulfill the baserunning requirements or we'd allow the defense to get an out and negate the "winning" run. The same is apparently true on "inning ending" runs / outs / plays."

I agree that the OP is not an appeal play -- it's a force play. But, it *could* be an appeal play if the situation were changed slightly.

3rd out
 

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.

1) Try using paragraphs.

2) It's Chris Jaksa and Rick Roder.

score the run
 

Thanks for the help and name correction.

cripes, you expect us to decipher all this?

I will vouch for the fact that Ozzy doesn't give a crap anymore!:)

Don't call it an appeal
 

The fourth out may involve a missed base appeal. The B/R who misses a base allows for the possibility of a 4th out to be made on appeal by the defense. The fourth out resulting from a missed base appeal "force-out" often wipes off any runs scored during the playing action.

During a live ball, the 3rd out made on a timing play most often ends an inning. However in the OP, the 3rd out {a timing play} did not end this inning. The BR who never touched 1B allows the defense an opportunity to complete a legal inning ending double play. This advantageous fourth out wipes the run off the board.

That, my friend, falls under res ipsa loquitur.

The only time I can remember an automatic out call is when the HS rules stated that the umpire will call the runner out for a missed base. I saw this happen one time where U1 called out the batter-runner for not touching first which caused runs to be taken off the board.

had three AA guys over for dinner tonight after their game. posed this situation to them and all four of us agree that the inning is over upon the tag of R2 and the run scores. one of them thought about the 4th out thing at first, but then we talked about appeals and that this sit. isn't an appeal. after they came to their decision, i told them i was on the same page as them, but, that fitzy had ruled as stated on here a number of years ago. all disagreed with that ruling.

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 would have to agree with your guys. Appeals are made on infractions that occur before the third out of an inning occurs. I would think that once the third out in an inning is made, you cannot commit an infraction since the inning is over. Runners cannot advance after the third out is made in an inning, so how can we penalize a runner for not advancing after the third out is made?

That's not the correct reasoning. For one thing, the BR DID fail to reach 1B before the third out, so if that's an infraction it meets your criterion.

The issue is whether BR not advancing to 1B is an appeal play. It is not defined as such by the rules; however, bob jenkins points out a play where it is treated as an appeal play.

They can disagree all they want, but they can't override the ruling.

he's not the boss anymore.

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

Hopkins made the same ruling for FED.

A fair batted ball that hits the top of the fence and goes over is a home run. That isn't specifically in the rules either.

Coach's interference is still a live ball, apparently contrary to the rules.

Fair enough
 

How do you explain the situation to the manger who refuses to allow his players off the field and also wants the run wiped off the board?

"the inning is over when your guy tagged the runner from second."

Fielder's Choice?
 

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."

Has anyone considered contacting Jim Evans for his thoughts on this matter? I go to him on situations such as this.

"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."

what is the example play in his book?

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.

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.

Square One
 

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.
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.

Recognized 4th Out
 

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!

from the OP:

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.

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).

Contradiction
 

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.

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.

Arbitration?
 

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.
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. :p

let's try this
 

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.

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..

Absolutely, Check mate!
 

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.