d-backs/padres ending
 

Extra innings. Just ended a few seconds ago. Bases loaded two out, bottom of the 10th, tied. Batter walks. Runner on second base runs from second directly toward dugout instead of toward third. He's well on to the infield grass when the runner from third touches home.

Umpires caucus for a long time. It's unclear whether the runner tried to run back from the dugout to third. Announcers had no idea what the rule is. What is the rule?

(After consultation, they counted the run and ended the game.)

Edit: Watching post-game. Umps still in dugout discussing. Fans have left.

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.

Try reading 4.09(b) - all the way through.

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.)

They said on the telecast that he did in fact protest, based on the explanation he was given, whatever that means. There did appear to be an appeal at third, though the appeal was well after the runner from third touched home. It is unclear to me from the rule quoted above when and whether the out can be declared earlier than the appeal in this situation, but if it matters, at the time the runner from third touched home, the runner from second had taken a direct line from second base toward the third base dug out, and was on the infield grass. I don't know whether this is enough to be declared out on an advance on a walk -- he clearly had not left the field or anything and easily could have taken a right hand turn and run toward third if he'd wanted to. The 3BU did not make any kind of mechanic to signal an out before the run scored.

An out for abandoment is NEVER a force play, by interpretation, in MLB (and MiLB, I think).

Some think the interp should be changed and/or the rule should be clarified.

Under OBR R3 needs to touch the plate and BR needs to touch 1B. R1 and R2 can do what they like. Sounds as if that's what happened.

Straight from 4.09b.

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.

Any runner can be called out if they progress a resonable distance toward their dugout, obviously abandoning all efforts to run the bases. No need to wait for a fielder to try and attempt a tag.

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.

Look at this way, the Padres folded early this year and got it over with.

Think 2007 & 2010.

JEA says on a walk off hit all the forced runners have to advance and touch the next base. This is not in the MLBUM or the rule though. I'm not sure where Evans came up with that but a lot of folks seem to e running with it.

Isn't that the Merkle play?

Yes it is the Merkle play. The rule is different for a walk-off walk or HBP. If the ball is hit, the "force is on" and being a forced third out would negate the run.

Not true. Here is what 4.09b says and its absolutely clear.

As mbryon stated earlier what the runner from 1st and 2nd do is irrelevant. They do not have to advance to the next base. Only the batter and scoring runner.

Not clear at all. It is clear that with the bases loaded, a walk or HBP allows each runner to advance one base without liability of being put out. BUT the game is not over UNTIL R3 touches home and B/R touches first. A batted ball is different since no run can score when a force out is the third out at any base. You see the situation often.... Grounder to third on over to second, on to the tenth tie game. The game is not over because the runners were forced and R3 touched home and B/R
touched first. The little matter of the 5-4 force negated the run and forces are not timing plays. If the (next) base or the runner (R1 or R2) is tagged before the runner touches the base, it is a force out. If it is the third out, no runs score. In the OP where R2 abandoned his attempt to advance to third he could "theoretically" be put out on appeal, but the run counted and the game ended before the appeal could be made.


In Merkle's Boner there were runners on first and third and Merkle did not advance to and touch second after an apparent game winning hit. Would it make any sense that the situation would be any different just because the bases were loaded??

Another play covered by 4.09(b) would be catcher's interference. Same mechanics as a walk or HBP.

But, say it was an uncaught third strike. You could retire R1 or R2 if for some reason they did not touch the next base by a force out mechanic.

Or take this situation. Grounder to third toward short. R2 stops so as not to be tagged. F5's throw goes over head of F4 into RF. R2 thinks the winning run scored and exuberantly races to the plate to join the celebration without touching third. He can still be forced out at third to negate the apparent winning run.