Gameplay Situation I need a ruling on
 

Here's the situation...
Two outs, runners on second and third. There's a ground ball hit to short and both runners run on contact. The shortstop throws to third and the third baseman completes the tag play on the runner trying to advance to third for the final out of the inning. The batter-runner didn't make it to first before the tag was made, but for arguments sake we'll say the runner from third did cross the plate before the tag was made. Does the run score? Or does the run not count because of the batter not getting to first and the third out of the inning being made?

Any help and/or references to an official rulebook would be incredibly helpful. Thanks guys.

The batter-runner's status is unimportant as the out wasn't on him. R2 wasn't forced to third, so this becomes a time play. Score the run if R3 crossed before R2 was tagged.

Basic rules principles, so you should look up "time play" and "force" and the section that deals with runs scoring.

What did the umpire(s) tell you last night?

Umpire Question
 

Now that's a loaded question.

OBR 4.09 "A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made (1) by the batter-runner before he touches first base; (2) by any runner being forced out; or (3) by a preceding runner who is declared out because he failed to touch one of the bases."

Not sure your going to find a definition of Time-Play in the rule book but, as Rich has stated, it does make reference to the reason the run would score.

Rule 4.09 (a) and see 4.09 COMMENT.

I was BU a couple of years ago on a play very similar to this.

My partner and I were working our third game in VERY hot heat.

He lined it up perfectly and said, "The Run Counts" and pointed.

Then he looked sheepishly at me and said just as loudly, "Of course, because there are now only two outs."

Everybody cracked up.

Note that the batter runner still needs to tag first. Otherwise, the defense could get a fourth out at first base. This would nullify the run.

I would LOVE to see this rule.

FWIW J/R is wrong on this in my opinion.

What page in J/R...I want to check out their take

Not sure what you mean by this? Rule 7.10d covers 4th outs. Is the "rule" you are referring too the interp from J/R? Please expand on this as I see the defense appealing that the B/R never touched 1B to nullify a run to be a legal & smart play.

Johnnyg - I don't own a J/R manual, but I have been told that they consider a "fourth out appeal" of the BR not reaching 1st a legal appeal.

Rube - 7.10d deals with a missed home plate appeal.

Briefly, I am of the opinion, that once the third out has been recorded, the BR no longer has the responsibility to touch 1st base. There are only four types of appeals that can result in a runner being called out. Out of the four, only three can result in an umpire recognizing an apparent "fourth out." The four are: 1) failure to properly tag up on a caught fly ball, 2) missed base, 3) failure of BR "immediately" returning to 1st after over running it, and 4) missed home plate. Number 3 is irrelevant due to the fact that the BR need not return to 1st base after the third out has been recorded. There is no appeal for "not reaching a base" after three outs have been recorded. An umpire cannot use abandonment in this case either, since abandonment is not an appeal play, thus resulting in a "time" play.

4.09(b) and PENALTY is only applicable when it's the winning run in the bottom of the last inning, or the bottom of an extra inning. Then the BR must touch first or the run is nullified. At the end of any other inning, the BR is not required by rule to touch 1st base. If the run scores before the tag on an unforced runner, it counts and position of the BR is irrelevant.

Gameplay situation I need a ruling on
 

I agree with your opinion if no runners have scored during the play. I will disagree if a runner has scored where the BR was retired for the third out. By rule, if the BR did not reach 1B safely where he would be the third out, no runner can score.

In the OP, Fivesdadda is asking if R3 could score if R3 crossed the plate prior to R2 being tagged out for the third out. If 1B was open and the BR never safely attained 1B, R3's run would not count even though R3 crossed HP prior to R2 being tagged.

J/R advantageous 4th out appeal play page citations: 20,32,44,49,77,87

Here is the relevant portion of a post by someone identified as "Wendlestedt" at the Wendlestedt message board:

This is a base (first) never reached, not one which was not touched or not properly tagged up from. There is no appeal for never reaching a base. Unfortunately, neither Jaska and Roder have been in the game for sometime now, and even when they were, they were so analytical with the rules that they often failed to get what the rulebook intended for. That is what I expect happened in this case. They are what we call at umpire school "rule book lawyers".

Walk off Walk - Umpire School Forum

One citation I will happily ignore.

I was not thinking of an appeal play. In the orignal play description, I was thining that the third baseman could throw to first to get a fourth out before the batter reaches first.

I just looked in the MLB rule book, and I confess that I did not find anything that clearly justifies this.

That is why I usually just read this board and keep my mouth shut :)

"I'll do the thining around here, Babalooey!" - Quickdraw McGraw :D

I think the rule is no run can score IF the BR is put out before reaching first, not if he doesn't reach first safely. Two different things it seems, and importantly so.

Other posters have shown that not touching first on the OP play is not appealable, so I don't see how you wouldn't count the run nopachunts. Whether he touches first or not is irrelevant on the non-force 3rd out of R2, and the defense can't appeal the BR not touching first. Thus, score the run.

This play has been around since Al Gore invented the interwebs:

R2, R3, two outs. B5 grounds to F6. As B5 runs toward first, he stumbles, breaks his ankle and lies writhing in pain on the ground. The following happens in order: R3 touches the plate. F6 throws the ball to F5 who tags R2 (three outs). F5 throws to F3 who steps on first (4 outs?).

Does the run count?

Day game or night game? :D

no run?

Later afternoon game that ends in the evening. :D

Directly from the MLBUM page 42 in relation to rule 4.09 OBR:

1. No run shall score during a play in which the third out is made by the batter-runner before he touches first base.
2. No run shall score during a play in which the third out is a force out.
3. Following runners are not affected by an act of a preceeding runner unless two are out.

It doesn't really talk about the advantageous 4th out appeal here. I think they would have to execute the 4th out appeal in order to nullify the run based on #1.

From OBR rule 7.10, page 74:

Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent "fourth out"." If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage. For the purpose of this rule, the defensive team has "left the field" when the pitcher and all infielders have left fair territory on their way to the bench or clubhouse.

Please re-read my post #12 as to what are acceptable appeals for an apparent "fourth out."

2.00 An APPEAL is the act of a fielder in claiming violation of the rules by the offensive team.

There is no rule that requires the BR to touch 1st base after 3 outs have been recorded. No violation, no appeal.

okay, so are you saying that the run scores? minus the 4th out appeal?

An appeal is for a violation of the rules or a base running error. What error happened here? He didn't miss the base because he never got there to begin with.

With the classic OP that Bob posted.

Yes, I am saying the run scores.

The appeal is not recognized as it is not an appealable offense.

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.

Why? The persons empowered to make rules ruled. If you're doing one of their games it's official.

Why? Do rules have to be re-done every year?

They're in effect until changed - and these haven't.

I believe you quoted interpretations of rules, not rules.


They are in effect until interpreted otherwise. And according to some ML umpires, this has been done.

Sorry, those quotes are not from persons "empowered to make rules."

In two cases they are interps from people no longer making interps. And none are from people who provide interps for MLB.

True. Do you have something written from MLB that contradicts these interps? Until we have that, I don't see much choice other than to go with what we have, individual MLB umpires' opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

FWIW, Wendelstedt does not recognize this appeal. It is in his 2008 Rules and Mechanics manual.

Since I am of the hard headed sort, I am not going to allow this appeal for any OBR game since I have something in writing from 2008. As far as NCAA, I am going to have to check around.

They aren't? They were empowered to make interpretations. Isn't that close enough?

Do rules/laws expire when the persons passing them leave office? Not where I live.

I never said they covered MLB - I said FED, NCAA, and PBUC.

So you don't like the rulings. Evans doesn't like the MLB ruling that you can overrun first on a walk. People have differing opinions on how things should be interpreted. That doesn't mean one can ignore the official ones in the applicable venues.

Too funny, KF.

BTW gang, I had a walk-off walk this year and B1 "almost" went into the dugout. You had to see F2 chase him to first trying to tag him, which he did, with no call from me.

Losing coach: (Who, considering all factors, was quite reasonable) "My player tagged the kid."
Me: "Well, he touched the batter-runner with the ball, It wasn't a tag."
Coach: "What?"
Me: "You may tag someone only if he is in peril of being thrown out. You can't tag a runner on his way to first after a walk."
Coach: "Then the batter was out of the baseline."
Me: "A tag play must be in progress to call a runner out of the baseline."
Coach: "Right. My kid tagged him."

.. and so on.

Logic that would give Thomas Aquinas a stiff neck.

Ace in CT

Interesting that Wendelstedt teaches one thing in their book, then when their honor grads go to PBUC, they have to learn something different.

Rumor has it that Evans still teaches that you can't overrun first on a walk.

I guess I don't understand why at "pro school" where they train all umpires who are in the pro system, stuff that won't apply to them when the move on to the next level.

Is Wendel or Evans teaching more concept in those principles and that's why they teach it that way?

Gameplay situation I need a ruling on
 

Almost there

At least there has been some rules disussions/interpretations vs. the opinions of whether a certain MLB umpire is any good. :rolleyes:

hmmm...
 

I wonder if this could be interp'd as a 'fake tag'.

I'm sure someone will say, "Don't pick that booger"!
:D

Depends on how many posts you have per page (in your personal settings). We're only on page 2 for me.

One of the smallest changes that makes a big difference in view-ability on this site.

"We salute you Mr. Customizable Posts-Per-Page Guy!"

Customs and Traditions
 

With two outs, you have to find a ruling you like. I tend to enforce the same ruling when there are NO outs, one out or two outs.

Case: 2 outs, R3, R2, ground ball to OF fired home. R3 scores easily and R2 is thrown out at the plate. The B/R returns to the plate to pick up the bat and instruct R2 to slide. The pitcher sees the B/R's action and tells the catcher to fire the ball to 1B for an out. Does it count as an advantageous 4th out and take away the run scored by R3? I say it does and if you don't want to agree with SAump, fine.

Would your ruling change with 1 out?

Case: 1 out, R3, R2, ground ball to OF fired home. R3 scores easily and R2 is thrown out at the plate. The B/R returns to the plate to pick up the bat and instruct R2 to slide. The pitcher sees the B/R's action and tells the catcher to fire the ball to 1B for an out. Does it count as the 3rd out and take away the run scored by R3? I say it does and if you don't want to agree with SAump, fine.

Would your ruling change with 0 out?

Case: 0 out, R3, R2, ground ball to OF fired home. R3 scores easily and R2 is thrown out at the plate. The B/R returns to the plate to pick up the bat and instruct R2 to slide. The pitcher sees the B/R's action and tells the catcher to fire the ball to 1B for an out. 2 outs?

I have not seen a ruling which states the B/R has no obligation to continue running to 1B when the 3rd out has been made on another runner.