![]() |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
touche
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again |
|
|||
Quote:
#2. On what, a missed base, failure to tag up, failure to REACH a base? |
|
|||
WHo cares? They all said it's valid.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again |
|
|||
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.
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Routine Situation and Odd Ruling | Ref Ump Welsch | Softball | 39 | Wed May 06, 2009 03:03pm |
HELP WITH A RULING | jason181988 | Baseball | 12 | Mon May 02, 2005 04:38pm |
T Situation Ruling | BigGref | Basketball | 11 | Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:35pm |
Need help on a ruling | kimo | Softball | 34 | Thu Aug 14, 2003 04:45pm |
Ruling help | hoopcoach98 | Basketball | 11 | Mon Apr 01, 2002 04:09pm |