No, he's saying that there is no rule requiring BR to touch 1st base after the third out is made, so in this particular circumstance, there is no appeal available, and as such, no 4th out. And yes, the run scores.

Five pages, I predict. Maybe six.

Since J/R is only a reference and not official interp...we disallow that interp? J/R says that we do have the advantageous 4th out appeal.

The OP is a time play. 3 outs, inning over.

J/R is not official and has been wrong in more than one ruling. (Roder has admitted an incorrect ruling in the past.)

PBUC advises its umpres to ignore all rulings that do not come from them. Of course, PBUC usually responds to new MLB rulings by adopting them.

2009 BRD

#3 Page 13

in 2001 FED, NCAA, and PBUC all ruled that you CAN get the advantageous 4th out appeal at first.

touche

#1. 2001, right?

#2. On what, a missed base, failure to tag up, failure to REACH a base?

WHo cares? They all said it's valid.

Ok before we get to 5 pages I will succumb to Fivesdada game.

I agree

You out, you out
You mama says you out
You appealed at first and the run don't score
The inning over and der ain't no more
You out, you out.

Next thread please.

It matters.

2008 BRD: §3

FED: OFF INTERP 2-3: Hopkins: If the defense gains a third out during play, but the batter-runner has not yet reached first at the time of the out, the defense may play on him at first for an advantageous fourth out. [email to Stevens, 5/11/01] {See 9-1-1 Ex d.}

NCAA: OFF INTERP 3-3: Fetchiet: Same as FED OFF INTERP 2-3. [Website 4/18/01, 8-6a]{See 8-6b-7}

OBR: OFF INTERP 4-3: Fitzpatrick: Same as FED. [email to cc, 1/17/01] {See 7.10}

•Play 3-3: R3, R2, 2 outs: B1 singles to the outfield but injures himself coming out of the box; he cannot continue. R3 scores easily, but R2 is thrown out at home: 3 outs. The catcher then fires to F3, who tags first in advance of B1. Ruling: The "appeal" at first results in an advantageous fourth out that cancels R3's run.

2001? I guess interps are stagnant, eh?

Apparently some major league umpires haven't read, or don't care what the BRD has to say.

I know we have bantered about this before on another forum. I did not know that Fitzpatrick ruled that way. This is not the only interp from Fitz that has raised eyebrows. If it is the official interp, I wonder why it would not be in any other publications such as the MLBUM? This ruling is in stark contrast to other rules that define what is acceptable by appeal and the very definition of an appeal.

I read through MLBUM and couldn't find a scenario like this in there...do you have a page number? I typed what I found regarding appeal principles and that was all I really was able to find.

Wendlestedt and the MLB pros have not given me much to work on with the nuances of the game when strange sits have come up. From replays, to fouls, to balks for appealing from the rubber, to D3Ks, to time plays. Me and my friends have brain farted all of those situations at one time or another. But I think the MLB guys are mechanics orientated and have to get the balls, strikes and outs right. They could care less about the 3rd world stuff because it doesn't happen in the pros, except when it does. So, for us mortals, I gotta reread the BRD again and go with it.