OBR 12 and 238

[Bfair]

To understand the ruling of "Order of Appeals" we should first look to the rule that needs clarification. From Rule 7.10 Notes, Approved Ruling 1:

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 the play that ends a half-inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.
[my emphasis]

So, the question arises of what is meant by "more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning"?
While it certainly would include a 3rd out and any subsequent outs gained by appeal thereafter, would it also include appeals for the 2nd out of the inning if the 3rd out is then subsequently appealed during the same continuous play?
In other words, both outs are gained "during the play that ends a half-inning"?

So, the ruling of "Order of Appeals" reads:

OFF INTERP 13-12 PBUC STAFF: If the defense will make multiple appeals, when a force play situation is in effect, the appeals must be made "in the proper order."

Now, let's examine the following situation which would encompass the meaning of this ruling without infringing upon (and making assumptions about) other rulings provided the PBUC:

With bases loaded and 1 out, a force play situation is in effect when the ball is hit fair. The batter triples scoring all runners, but R2 failed to touch home, AND R1 fails to touch 2B while advancing home.
Assume now that both infractions are appealed and that the umpire upholds the appeals when made.......

Even though there has been "more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning", the PBUC ruling advises us that the order in which the defense makes the appeal can be a factor.

1. If the defense first appeals that R1 missed 2B and then appeals that R2 missed home, then R1 is the 2nd out of the inning and R2 is the 3rd out to end the inning. Since R2 is not a force out, then the run of R3 (a preceding runner) would count.
   
2. If the defense first appeals that R2 missed home then followed by their appeal of R1 missing 2B, then R1 is the final out and, being a force out (per ruling provided in The BRD Section 238), his out would negate the score of R3.

This play supports the ruling; and the ruling supports the play.
Order of appeals does matter. Without this ruling, the defense could legitimately claim under the appeal situation (1) above, that they elect the out of the BR to be the final out since it would be to their advantage (per rule 7.10) and since it was gained when "there is more than one appeal during the play that ends a half-inning."

---

The wording of the PBUC ruling provided us in Section 12 provides us nothing stating that it contradicts or supersedes their ruling in Section 238 (although The BRD author has apparently assumed that without reporting it). The official interpretation reported in Section 12 states nothing about removing a force on a runner---yet the author's example play provides that. The author should either correct his play or correct his reporting of the ruling of "Order of Appeals". One of the two must be in error based on how it is currently reported at this point in time.


Just my opinion,

Freix