![]() |
|
|
|||
Very similar play to the one I brought up in a thread several weeks ago. Butch Wynegar took a bases loaded ball four that was a wild pitch. He did not go to first and joined in the celebration at the plate. The theory was that if the B/R makes the third out at first, a run cannot score.
Back then the ump said the wild pitch took precedence over the walk so the run stood. This play was not a force out. The runner on third was entitled to home by the bases loaded walk. Could have been another Merkel Boner though. I think I heard Bud Black protested the decision. It sounds like they appealed to third in which case it was a timing play and the run had crossed the plate by that time. I guess it could be argued that an out could be called for abandonment and when that out could have been called before the run scored. Last edited by Larry1953; Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 11:10pm. |
|
|||
Baseball is not my game, and your rules make my head hurt. The first parts of the rule seem relatively clear -- run counts unless the runner from third declines to run home or the BR does not promptly touch first. (Unless there is some fan interference.) Seems to cover the situation.
Then I get to stuff like this and it's where y'all lose me: "When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire's decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners." As I read this, it relates to the timing of when the out at third occurs, which apparently can occur in some cases when the appeal is granted and in others when the base was missed, although the "as applied to the following runners" is as clear as mud to me. But as I understand it, it all is irrelevant if the runner from third touched home and the BR touched first. (Which seems consistent with how the crew chief handled it, because he seemed to go directly to the first base U.) Quote:
Last edited by rulesmaven; Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 11:26pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Also, where does it say that a runner must go straight to the next base. He is just making a creative baseline. No tag play is eminent, so he can make his own "baseline". Besides that, 4.09b says it doesn't matter. Case closed. |
|
|||
Quote:
Tim. |
|
|||
Exactly, just like on a walk-off hit. As soon as R3 touches home and the BR touches first, the game is over and R1 and R2 are of no consequence. Black had no grounds for protest, and frankly should have not grasped at straws just because his crappy team lost yet another game. Looked kind of silly.
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
|||
Quote:
Think 2007 & 2010. |
|
|||
Quote:
Isn't that the Merkle play?
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
Not EVERYTHING they like... For example - R2 cannot sprint to third and pass R3 before R3 reaches home. Other examples like this.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() The OP wanted to know whether R1 and R2 had to touch their advance base in this case. They don't. Hope that is clearer than my original answer.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Come backs for Coaches | MidMadness | Basketball | 26 | Sat Sep 06, 2008 04:08pm |
Camel Backs??? | PanamaCityBrian | Baseball | 20 | Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:59pm |
Padres vs Rockies 4-18-06 | jwwashburn | Baseball | 8 | Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:49am |
Motioning of Backs. | J.Thurman | Football | 8 | Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:40am |
Looking at Backs | rainmaker | Basketball | 45 | Tue Sep 03, 2002 09:54am |